浙江临床医学
浙江臨床醫學
절강림상의학
ZHEJIANG CLINICAL MEDICAL JOURNAL
2013年
5期
634-636
,共3页
经皮肾镜碎石术%超声碎石术%肾结石%感染
經皮腎鏡碎石術%超聲碎石術%腎結石%感染
경피신경쇄석술%초성쇄석술%신결석%감염
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy lithotripsy%Ultrasonic lithotripsy%Kidney stones%Infection
目的对比经皮肾镜下气压弹道碎石术与超声碎石术治疗感染性肾结石的临床疗效.方法2010年1月至2012年10月就诊的68例感染性肾结石患者,按随机数字表分成观察组34例和对照组34例.观察组采用经皮肾镜下气压弹道碎石术治疗,对照组采用超声碎石术治疗.比较两组结石清除率、手术时间、住院时间以及两组术中及术后并发症.结果观察组32例尿道结石完全清除,结石清除率为94.12%;对照组有26例结石完全清除,结石清除率为79.47%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).观察组的手术时间、术中出血量和住院时间为(1.35±0.45)h、(75.3±9.9) ml和(6.5±2.1)d,对照组分别为(1.48±0.55)h、(79.3±12.6)ml和(6.3±1.8)d,两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).观察组术后出现并发症2例,并发症发生率为5.88%;对照组术后出现并发症5例,并发症发生率为14.71%.两组比较差异无统计学意义(χ2=1.433,P>0.05).结论经皮肾镜气压弹道碎石术优于超声碎石术,是一种治疗感染性结石的损伤小、恢复快、结石清除率高的方法.
目的對比經皮腎鏡下氣壓彈道碎石術與超聲碎石術治療感染性腎結石的臨床療效.方法2010年1月至2012年10月就診的68例感染性腎結石患者,按隨機數字錶分成觀察組34例和對照組34例.觀察組採用經皮腎鏡下氣壓彈道碎石術治療,對照組採用超聲碎石術治療.比較兩組結石清除率、手術時間、住院時間以及兩組術中及術後併髮癥.結果觀察組32例尿道結石完全清除,結石清除率為94.12%;對照組有26例結石完全清除,結石清除率為79.47%,兩組比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.05).觀察組的手術時間、術中齣血量和住院時間為(1.35±0.45)h、(75.3±9.9) ml和(6.5±2.1)d,對照組分彆為(1.48±0.55)h、(79.3±12.6)ml和(6.3±1.8)d,兩組比較,差異無統計學意義(P>0.05).觀察組術後齣現併髮癥2例,併髮癥髮生率為5.88%;對照組術後齣現併髮癥5例,併髮癥髮生率為14.71%.兩組比較差異無統計學意義(χ2=1.433,P>0.05).結論經皮腎鏡氣壓彈道碎石術優于超聲碎石術,是一種治療感染性結石的損傷小、恢複快、結石清除率高的方法.
목적대비경피신경하기압탄도쇄석술여초성쇄석술치료감염성신결석적림상료효.방법2010년1월지2012년10월취진적68례감염성신결석환자,안수궤수자표분성관찰조34례화대조조34례.관찰조채용경피신경하기압탄도쇄석술치료,대조조채용초성쇄석술치료.비교량조결석청제솔、수술시간、주원시간이급량조술중급술후병발증.결과관찰조32례뇨도결석완전청제,결석청제솔위94.12%;대조조유26례결석완전청제,결석청제솔위79.47%,량조비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05).관찰조적수술시간、술중출혈량화주원시간위(1.35±0.45)h、(75.3±9.9) ml화(6.5±2.1)d,대조조분별위(1.48±0.55)h、(79.3±12.6)ml화(6.3±1.8)d,량조비교,차이무통계학의의(P>0.05).관찰조술후출현병발증2례,병발증발생솔위5.88%;대조조술후출현병발증5례,병발증발생솔위14.71%.량조비교차이무통계학의의(χ2=1.433,P>0.05).결론경피신경기압탄도쇄석술우우초성쇄석술,시일충치료감염성결석적손상소、회복쾌、결석청제솔고적방법.
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy lithotripsy and ultrasonic lithotripsy in the treatment of infectious kidney stones. Methods 68 patients with infectious kidney stones from January 2010 to October 2012 in our department were divided by random number table into observation group(34 cases)and control group (34 cases). Patients in the observation group were treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy lithotripsy and patients in the control group were treated with ultrasonic lithotripsy.Stone clearance rate,operative time,hospital stay,and intraoperative and postoperative complications in the two groups were compared. Results In the observation group,32 cases of urinary tract stones were completely cleared,stone clearance rate was 94.12%.In the control group,26 cases of stones were completely cleared,stone clearance rate was 79.47%,and there was statistically significant(P<0.05).Operative time,blood loss and length of hospital stay(1.35±0.45h,75.3±9.9ml and 6.5±2.1d)in the observation group were few than those in the control group(1.48±0.55 h,79.3±12.6 ml and 6.3±1.8d),there were not statistically significant(P>0.05).There were two cases fo postoperative complications in the observation group,the complication rate was 5.88%.There were five cases in the control group,the complication rate was 14.71%,there were not statistically significant(χ2= 1.433,P>0.05). Conclusion Percutaneous nephrolithotomy lithotripsy is better than ultrasonic lithotripsy.It is a method with minimal damage, quick recovery and high stone clearance.
