CAJ | 학술논문

目的比较CQS-01和EMS-Ⅲ 、EMS-Ⅳ超声碎石清石系统碎石清石效果. 方法自制标准石膏柱(直径20 mm,高10 mm,维氏硬度368 mPa)作为结石模型,共20枚,随机分为4组,每组5枚.将结石模型平放于60ml一次性注射器内,并浸没于水中,分别采用CQS-01、EMS-Ⅲ 、EMS-Ⅳ(A)超声碎石清石系统在相同条件下(70％功率、70％占空比、负压0.02 mPa)和EMS-Ⅳ(B)超声碎石清石系统(70％功率、100％占空比、负压0.02 mPa)将结石破碎并清除,记录结石击穿时间、碎石清石时间,并测量碎石颗粒大小. 结果 CQS-01 、EMS-Ⅲ、EMS-Ⅳ(A)和EMS-Ⅳ (B)的结石击穿时间分别为(7.4±1.9)s、(9.4±1.6)s、(82.2±12.6)s和(51.4±18.7)s,CQS-01、EMS-Ⅲ两组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),CQS-01与EMS-Ⅳ(A和B)比较差异有统计学意义(P ＜0.001)；4组碎石清石时间分别为(387.8 ±68.0)s、(411.6 ±57.6)s、(568.0 ±119.1)s和(383.6 ±75.6)s,组间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)；4组碎石颗粒最大直径均＜3 mm. 结论 CQS-01体外碎石清石效果与EMS-Ⅲ和EMS-Ⅳ系统相似.
목적 비교CQS-01화EMS-Ⅲ 、EMS-Ⅳ초성쇄석청석계통쇄석청석효과. 방법자제표준석고주(직경20 mm,고10 mm,유씨경도368 mPa)작위결석모형,공20매,수궤분위4조,매조5매.장결석모형평방우60ml일차성주사기내,병침몰우수중,분별채용CQS-01、EMS-Ⅲ 、EMS-Ⅳ(A)초성쇄석청석계통재상동조건하(70％공솔、70％점공비、부압0.02 mPa)화EMS-Ⅳ(B)초성쇄석청석계통(70％공솔、100％점공비、부압0.02 mPa)장결석파쇄병청제,기록결석격천시간、쇄석청석시간,병측량쇄석과립대소. 결과 CQS-01 、EMS-Ⅲ、EMS-Ⅳ(A)화EMS-Ⅳ (B)적결석격천시간분별위(7.4±1.9)s、(9.4±1.6)s、(82.2±12.6)s화(51.4±18.7)s,CQS-01、EMS-Ⅲ량조비교차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05),CQS-01여EMS-Ⅳ(A화B)비교차이유통계학의의(P ＜0.001)；4조쇄석청석시간분별위(387.8 ±68.0)s、(411.6 ±57.6)s、(568.0 ±119.1)s화(383.6 ±75.6)s,조간차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05)；4조쇄석과립최대직경균＜3 mm. 결론 CQS-01체외쇄석청석효과여EMS-Ⅲ화EMS-Ⅳ계통상사.
Objective To assess the efficacy of stone fragmentation and clearance of this new intracorporeal ultrasound lithotripter (CQS-01) compared with currently available ultrasound units (EMS-Ⅲ/Ⅳ).Methods Twenty phantom stones composed of dental gypsum were randomly divided into four groups,and CQS-01 ultrasound lithotripter (70％ power and 70％ duty factor),EMS-Ⅲ ultrasound lithotripter (70％ power and 70％ duty factor),EMS-Ⅳ ultrasound lithotripter (type A,70％ power and 70％ duty factor) and EMS-Ⅳ ultrasound lithotripter (type B,70％ power and 100％ duty factor) were used to fragment and removepbantom stones.The mean stone breakdown time and fragment removal time and stone fragmental sizes for the standard ultrasound devices were compared to determine the completeness and efficiency of stone fragmentation and removal.Results The average time for stone breakdown was 7.4 ± 1.9 s,9.4 ± 1.6 s,82.2 ± 12.6 s and 51.4 ± 18.7 s,respectively.There was no significant difference between CQS-01 and EMS-Ⅲ (P ＞ 0.05),but there was significant difference between CQS-01 and EMS-Ⅳ (A or B) (P ＜ 0.001).The average time for stone clearance using the ultrasound devices was 387.8 ± 68.0 s,41 1.6 ± 57.6 s,568.0 ± 119.1 s and 383.6 ± 75.6 s,respectively.In addition,the average size of the largest fragments removed was the same among the groups (＜ 3 mm).Conclusion The ultrasound capabilities in a newly developed lithotriter (CQS-01) exhibited the same ability to fragment and clear phantom stones compared with standard ultrasound devices.