中国民康医学
中國民康醫學
중국민강의학
MEDICAL JOURNAL OF CHINSEE PEOPLE HEALTH
2015年
2期
43-44
,共2页
输尿管镜钬激光碎石术%体外冲击波碎石术%输尿管结石
輸尿管鏡鈥激光碎石術%體外遲擊波碎石術%輸尿管結石
수뇨관경화격광쇄석술%체외충격파쇄석술%수뇨관결석
Ureteroscopic holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy%Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy%Ureteral stones
目的::探讨经输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石患者的临床疗效。方法:临床纳入输尿管结石患者90例,根据碎石方案的不同分为研究组与对照组,研究组患者进行经输尿管镜钬激光碎石术( LL),对照组患者进行体外冲击波碎石术( ESWL)。比较两组患者手术时间、术后3个月结石排净率等。结果:研究组患者治疗>1.0 cm与≤1.0 cm结石所需要的时间均短于对照组(P<0.05);研究组术后3个月>1.0 cm结石排净率为91.67%,对照组患者为68.00%,差异有显著性(P<0.05);研究组患者输尿管中下段术后3个月结石排净率为92.59%,对照组患者为72.00%,差异有显著性(P<0.05)。结论:体外冲击波碎石术适用于直径≤1.0 cm的输尿管上段结石,输尿管镜钬激光碎石术适用于直径>1.0 cm的输尿管中下段结石。
目的::探討經輸尿管鏡鈥激光碎石術治療輸尿管結石患者的臨床療效。方法:臨床納入輸尿管結石患者90例,根據碎石方案的不同分為研究組與對照組,研究組患者進行經輸尿管鏡鈥激光碎石術( LL),對照組患者進行體外遲擊波碎石術( ESWL)。比較兩組患者手術時間、術後3箇月結石排淨率等。結果:研究組患者治療>1.0 cm與≤1.0 cm結石所需要的時間均短于對照組(P<0.05);研究組術後3箇月>1.0 cm結石排淨率為91.67%,對照組患者為68.00%,差異有顯著性(P<0.05);研究組患者輸尿管中下段術後3箇月結石排淨率為92.59%,對照組患者為72.00%,差異有顯著性(P<0.05)。結論:體外遲擊波碎石術適用于直徑≤1.0 cm的輸尿管上段結石,輸尿管鏡鈥激光碎石術適用于直徑>1.0 cm的輸尿管中下段結石。
목적::탐토경수뇨관경화격광쇄석술치료수뇨관결석환자적림상료효。방법:림상납입수뇨관결석환자90례,근거쇄석방안적불동분위연구조여대조조,연구조환자진행경수뇨관경화격광쇄석술( LL),대조조환자진행체외충격파쇄석술( ESWL)。비교량조환자수술시간、술후3개월결석배정솔등。결과:연구조환자치료>1.0 cm여≤1.0 cm결석소수요적시간균단우대조조(P<0.05);연구조술후3개월>1.0 cm결석배정솔위91.67%,대조조환자위68.00%,차이유현저성(P<0.05);연구조환자수뇨관중하단술후3개월결석배정솔위92.59%,대조조환자위72.00%,차이유현저성(P<0.05)。결론:체외충격파쇄석술괄용우직경≤1.0 cm적수뇨관상단결석,수뇨관경화격광쇄석술괄용우직경>1.0 cm적수뇨관중하단결석。
Objective: To study clinical efficacy of ureteroscopic holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for patients with ureteral stones. Methods:90 ureteral stone patients were divided into study group and control group according to the different lithotripsy schemes. The study group received ureteroscopic holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy ( LL) , while the control group received extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy ( ESWL) . The operation time and the stone clearance rate 3 months after the treatment of the two groups were compared. Results:For the stones>1. 0 cm and≤1. 0 cm, the operation time of study group was shorter than that of control group (P<0. 05). For the stones >1. 0 cm, the stone clearance rates 3 months after the treatment of study group and control group were 91. 67% and 68. 00%, respectively, and the difference was significant (P<0. 05). For the stones in middle and lower ureter, the stone clearance rates 3 months after the treatment of study group and control group were 92. 59% and 72. 00%, respectively, and the differ-ence was significant (P<0. 05). Conclusions:For the stones in the upper ureter and with a diameter of≤1. 0 cm, ESWL is superior to LL;however, for the stones in middle and lower ureter and with a diameter of >1. 0 cm, LL is more suitable.