输尿管镜下钬激光碎石与气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石的疗效比较

目的 比较输尿管镜下钬激光碎石与气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石的临床效果.方法 回顾分析2009年1月至2011年2月输尿管镜下治疗输尿管结石459例临床资料,其中钬激光碎石术267例(312侧),气压弹道碎石术192例(220侧).结果 钬激光组260例(305侧)碎石成功,碎石总成功率97.76%;气压弹道组177例(205侧)碎石成功,碎石总成功率93.18%.术后4~6周随访,两组结石排净率分别为98.69%、94.15%,碎石成功率、结石排净率均有显著性差异.结论 输尿管镜下钬激光和气压弹道碎石术均是治疗输尿管结石的好方法,但在碎石成功率、结石排净率以及在处理输尿管结石合并息肉、狭窄时,钦激光具有更大的优势.     

输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石

目的：探讨输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石的疗效。方法：采用输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石患者128例，其中5例为ESWL后输尿管石街形成，6例并发急性梗阻性肾功能不全。结果：128例中，一次性碎石成功117例，占91．4％。碎石失败11例，占8．6％，其中6例输尿管上段结石移位至肾盂，留置双J管后行ESWL治愈，另外2例输尿管穿孔和3例进镜失败患者均立即改行开放手术治愈。6例并发急性梗阻性肾功能不全患者碎石术后即进入多尿期，2周后复查肾功能恢复正常。结论：输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石具有微创、安全、效果好等优点，可作为输尿管中、下段结石的首选治疗方法。     

比较钬激光与气压弹道输尿管镜碎石术治疗输尿管结石的效果

目的比较钬激光与气压弹道输尿管镜碎石术(URL)治疗输尿管结石的效果。方法前瞻性纳入2016-01—2019-02间杞县人民医院行URL治疗的输尿管结石患者,根据碎石方法不同分为钬激光组(钬激光碎石)和气压弹道组(气压弹道碎石)。比较2组患者的一般资料和疗效。结果共纳入90例患者,每组45例。2组患者的一般资料、术前肾功能水平,以及手术并发症发生率差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。钬激光组手术时间、术后下床活动时间、住院时间、结石排净率均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后2组患者的肾功能水平均显著改善,钬激光组的改善效果优于气压弹道组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论与气压弹道URL比较,钬激光URL治疗输尿管结石,患者术后恢复快、结石排净率高,更利于肾功能的改善。但需严格掌握适应证和规范进行手术操作。     

输尿管镜钬激光碎石术与气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石效果分析

目的分析输尿管镜钬激光碎石术(HLL)与气压弹道碎石术(PL)治疗输尿管结石的效果。方法随机将118例输尿管结石患者分为2组,各59例。对照组行PL,观察组行输尿管镜HLL。结果观察组手术时间、VAS疼痛评分、住院时间、结石排净率,以及肾功能不全患者的BUN、Scr水平等指标均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。2组并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论与PL比较,HLL治疗输尿管结石具有手术时间短、患者疼痛轻、结石排净率高、住院时间短等优势,而且更利于改善患者的肾功能。     

输尿管结石的输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗

目的探讨提高治疗输尿管结石疗效的方法。方法对146例(153侧)输尿管结石行输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗。结果输尿管上段结石32侧气压弹道碎石成功率为53.1%;输尿管中段结石15侧气压弹道碎石成功率为66.7%;输尿管下段结石106侧气压弹道碎石成功率为95.3%。治疗输尿管结石总成功率为83.7%(128/153),手术并发症为2.6%(4/153)。结论经尿道输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术是治疗输尿管结石的一种安全、有效的方法。     

输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石

目的总结气压弹道碎石机经输尿管镜治疗输尿管结石的临床效果？方法对采用该法治疗的307例输尿管结石患者的临床资料进行回顾和分析,总结应用该方法治疗的经验及教训．结果307例中碎石成功274例,占89．25％;失败33例,占10．75％,其中本组输尿管上端结石狭窄61例,术中结石被冲入肾盂21例,改行体外冲击波碎石术;输尿管输尿管口狭窄13例,输尿管弯曲5例,改行开放手术;双重输尿管4例,术中出血2例。结论气压弹道碎石术是一种安全、高效的输尿管腔内碎石术,可作为输尿管上端（有肉芽组织包裹结石）、中段和下段结石的首选治疗方法。术中结石被冲入肾盂、输尿管畸形、输尿管损伤、出血是导致手术失败的主要原因,熟练的操作技术和完善的术前检查可提高手术成功率。     

输尿管镜联合气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石

1998年 1 2月～ 2 0 0 0年 1 2月 ,我院应用 Storz输尿管硬镜联合气压弹道碎石机治疗输尿管结石1 65例 ,疗效满意 ,现报告如下。1　资料与方法1 .1 　 临床资料本组 1 65例 ,男 97例 ,女 68例 ,年龄 2 0～ 76岁 ,平均 41岁。结石位于输尿管上段 31例 ,中段 38例 ,下段 96例 ,其中双侧输尿管结石 1 5例 ,多发性结石 2 2例。结石大小 ( 0 .3cm× 0 .3cm)～ ( 2 .5cm× 1 .4cm) ,其中 >1 .0 cm× 1 .0 cm结石 43例 ;伴轻度肾积水 87例 ,中重度肾积水 38例。结石停留时间 >1 2个月 1 8例 ,>6个月 32例 ,>3个月 40例 ,>1个月 41例 ,<1个月 34例…     

输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石

目的 探讨输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石的治疗效果. 方法 我院2002年8月～2006年4月采用Wolf F8/9.8硬性输尿管镜联合瑞士EMS气压弹道碎石机碎石治疗输尿管结石158例163侧.采用椎管内麻醉,生理盐水作为冲洗液,输尿管镜进入输尿管,到达结石处后,气压弹道击碎并取出结石,并上行观察输尿管全长,术后留置双J管引流.结果手术时间15～90 min,平均40 min.碎石成功率96.9%（158/163）,其中输尿管上段结石碎石成功率86.6%（13/15）,中段结石碎石成功率96.9%（46/49）,下段结石碎石成功率100%（99/99）;2例输尿管上段结石移位至肾盂内,留置双J管后行体外冲击波碎石,其余3例为结石被击碎后,残余小结石进入肾盂,留置双J管后行药物排石或体外冲击波碎石.术中出现输尿管穿孔3例（1.8%）,留置双J管引流后治愈;无输尿管粘膜撕脱、断裂、周围血管脏器损伤等严重并发症,无中转开放手术.125例随访1～38个月,平均15个月,B超或KUB检查,无结石复发. 结论输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石具有碎石成功率高,创伤小,手术时间较短等优点,是治疗输尿管结石的一种安全、有效的方法.     

输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石失败原因分析

2002年5月～2004年3月，我们应用输尿管镜(URS)取石和气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石患者76例，其中治疗失败16例。现就其失败原因进行分析。     

经尿道输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石

目的探讨输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石的疗效。方法输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石56例，尿管上段结石3例，中段结石32例，下段结石21例中结石位于左侧30例，右侧25例，双侧1例。结果56例输尿管结石粉碎53例（94．6％），1例结石移动至肾盂未完成手术，1例置镜失败而改行开放手术，1例发生输尿管下段穿孔，经放置双J管内引流后改行ESWL治疗。30例（53．6％）术后有肉眼或镜下血尿，所有病例无尿路感染、输尿管黏膜剥脱、撕裂及狭窄等严重并发症。结论输尿管镜直视下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石，疗效确切、安全、组织损伤小，并发症少，可作为输尿管中段和下段结石的首选治疗方法。     

Comparison of pneumatic and Holmium laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy for upper third ureteral stones

ObjectiveTo evaluate the outcomes of ureteroscopic lithotripsy with pneumatic lithotripter and Holium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) laser in the management of upper third ureteral stones.Materials and methodsPatients who underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy with pneumatic lithotripter or Ho:YAG laser for upper third ureteral stones were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with urinary tract infection, radiolucent stones, loss of follow-up, concurrent middle or lower third ureteral stones or acute renal failure were excluded. Patient age, stone size and burden (based on KUB or computerized tomography), stone upward migration, double J stent insertion rate, stone free rate and secondary intervention rate for residual stones were compared in both groups.ResultsThere were 158 patients with 178 upper third ureteral stones (135 in pneumatic lithotripsy group and 43 in Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy group) meeting the study criteria. Patients' age, gender, stone laterality, stone size and burden were similar in both groups. The Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy group had better stone free rate, less double J stent insertion rate and less secondary intervention rate as compared with pneumatic lithotripsy (53.4% vs. 40.1%; 72.1% vs. 91.9%; 25% vs. 48.5% respectively, all p < 0.05). In patients with stones larger than 10 mm, Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy had significantly lower upward migration rate, lower double J stent insertion rate, higher stone free rate and less secondary intervention rate.ConclusionsHo:YAG laser lithotripsy is superior to pneumatic lithotripsy in the management of upper third ureteral stones in terms of double J stent insertion rate, stone free rate and secondary intervention rate for stones of all sizes. For stones larger than 10 mm, laser lithotripsy results in less stone upward migration.     

气压弹道碎石术与钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石的比较

目的：比较经输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术与钬激光石术治疗输尿结石的疗效和安全性。方法：总结应用输尿管镜技术治疗285例尿管结石患者的临床资料,其中气压弹道碎石术145例,钬激光碎石术140例。结果钬激光碎石术单次手术碎石率为95．75,高于气压弹道碎石术的69．7％,P＜0．01;钬激光碎石术平均结石排净时间为18d,短于气压弹道碎石术的31d,P＜0．01;钬激光碎石组无明显并发症发生,气压弹道碎石组有5例发生穿孔。结论钬激光碎石术的有效率和安全性优于气压弹碎石术,钬激光碎石术是治疗输尿管结石的一种安全、有高效的方法。     

Single‐session ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for multiple stones

Multiple stones are found in 20–25% of patients with urolithiasis. The stone multiplicity is a powerful adverse factor influencing the treatment outcome after shockwave lithotripsy, although guidelines for the treatment of multiple stones have not been well established yet. Herein we report our most recent experience of a single‐session ureteroscopy for multiple stones. Between September 2008 and December 2011, 51 patients with multiple stones (total 146 stones) in different locations (37unilateral, 14 bilateral) underwent a total of 65 ureteroscopic procedures. Operative time, stone‐free rates and complications were evaluated. Stone‐free status was defined as no fragments in the ureter and the absence of >2 mm fragments in the kidney. The mean stone number per patient was 2.9 ± 1.7 and the mean stone burden (cumulative stone length) was 21.5 ± 11.6 mm. The mean number of procedures was 1.3 ± 0.6. Overall, the stone‐free rate after a single session was 80% (41/51). In patients with stone burden <20 mm and ≥20 mm, stone‐free rates after a single session were 92% (23/25) and 69% (18/26), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that the stone burden and the presence of impacted stones were the factors significantly influencing the treatment outcome. Stone location did not have a strong influence on the outcome. No major intraoperative complications were identified. Our findings suggest that ureteroscopy is an efficient treatment for multiple stones. For patients with stone burden <20 mm, either unilaterally or bilaterally, a single session of ureteroscopy is a favorable treatment option with a high stone‐free rate.     

经皮肾取石术中钬激光与气压弹道的疗效比较

目的 比较钬激光碎石术（LL）与气压弹道碎石术（PL）在经皮肾穿刺取石术（PCNL）中的疗效和安全性.方法 128例肾结石患者,其中采用PL治疗49例,采用LL治疗79例.结果 LL组在手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间和并发症发生率方面均低于PL组（P〈0.05）,分别为（72.4±2.3）min与（100.5±1.9）min,（75.8±5.3）ml与（91.4±4.3）ml,（5.1±1.2）d与vs（8.2±1.1）d,1.3% 与10.2%;LL组一次碎石成功率则高于PL组,LL为92.1%,PL为71.2%（P〈0.05）.结论 LL的疗效和安全性优于PL,在PCNL中更适合,更安全和高效.     

输尿管镜钬激光碎石与气压弹道碎石的比较

目的：比较输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术与气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石的疗效与安全性。方法：回顾性分析输尿管镜下治疗76例输尿管结石患者的临床资料,其中采用钬激光碎石治疗36例（钬激光组）．气压弹道碎石治疗40例（气压弹道组）。结果：钬激光组平均术中碎石时间为8min,明显短于气压弹道组15min（P〈0．01）。钬激光组碎石成功率为97．2％,明显高于气压弹道碎石组的87．5％（P〈0．01）。两组手术均较安全,无明显相关并发症出现。结论：钬激光碎石术的有效性优于气压弹道碎石术,是一种治疗输尿管结石安全、高效的方法。     

钬激光治疗输尿管结石51例

目的 总结输尿管镜下钬激光治疗输尿管结石的经验和体会。方法 2002-03～06采用输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石51例(59侧)。结果 侧输尿管结石被粉碎55例,成功率93.2％。碎石后肾绞痛7例,无感染和输尿管损伤发生。手术后平均住院3.5d。结论 钬激光碎石术是治疗输尿管结石一种安全、有效的方法。     

输尿管镜下钬激光与气压弹道治疗输尿管中下段结石并息肉的疗效比较

目的：比较钬激光与气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管中下段结石并息肉的有效性及安全性。方法：回顾性分析我院2006年1月-2012年12月输尿管镜下治疗输尿管结石患者的临床资料,钬激光碎石组90例,气压弹道碎石组88例,比较两组手术时间、结石排净率及输尿管狭窄的发生率等。结果：两组均无中转开放病例。钬激光碎石一次性粉碎率为100％,一次性取净率为97．8％（88／90）;气压弹道碎石一次性粉碎率为100％,一次性取净率为95．5％（84／88）。钬激光碎石组与气压弹道碎石组结石清除率的差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。但钬激光组输尿管穿孔率为8．9％（8／90）,气压弹道组为1．1％（1／88）;钬激光组出现输尿管狭窄率为11．1％（10／90）,气压弹道组仅2．3％（2／88）,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术和气压弹道碎石术均可有效治疗合并息肉形成的中下段输尿管结石,但气压弹道碎石术的安全性更高。     

输尿管管路封堵器在输尿管镜钬激光碎石术中的价值探讨

目的：探讨应用输尿管管路封堵器配合输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石的安全性及有效性。方法：回顾性分析2011年5月-2011年9月应用输尿管管路封堵器配合输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗28例输尿管上段结石患者的临床资料：结石位于第2腰椎水平7例,第3腰椎水平9例,第4腰椎水平12例,结石大小为（0．8cm×1．0cm）-（1．3cm×1．7cm）,平均1．0cm×1．2cm。合并孤立肾5例．脊柱侧弯1例,糖尿病3例,肾功能不全11例。结果：术中出现4例部分结石移位至肾盏,均未出现输尿管穿孔或输尿管黏膜撕脱。术后2例出现高热,经抗感染对症治疗好转。术后1个月复查KUB平片．仅2例结石残留于肾下盏,结石取净率为92．8％。结论：输尿管管路封堵器是一种安全、有效的工具,能显著减少输尿管镜碎石术中结石移位,提高结石清除率,缩短手术时间,并可将结石碎片拖出输尿管腔道,以减少术后排石引起的疼痛。     

输尿管镜联合钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管膀胱壁段结石(附36例报告)

目的探讨输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管膀胱壁段结石的临床疗效。方法采用输尿管镜钬激光碎石治疗输尿管膀胱壁段结石36例,并再术后行KUB及IVP复查。结果35例患者临床症状缓解,影像学检查提示输尿管引流通畅,未见结石,手术成功率达97.2%。结论经输尿管镜钬激光治疗输尿管膀胱壁段结石,并发症少,是一种安全有效的微创治疗。     

Ureteroscopy and pneumatic lithotripsy, followed by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of distal ureteral stones

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively reviewed our experience with retrograde ureteroscopy (URS) and a pneumatic lithotriptor in 160 patients with distal ureteral stones to determine whether prior extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a limiting factor in the ureteroscopic procedure. METHODS: From January 1999 to September 2000, we performed URS and pneumatic lithotripsy in 160 patients with distal ureteral stones. Seventy-four patients were treated with URS primarily (Group 1), while the remaining 86 patients received URS only after ESWL had failed (Group 2). For URS and lithotripsy, we used a 9.5 French rigid instrument and vibrolith (Elmed, Ankara, Turkey). RESULTS: In Group 1, 73 of 74 patients (98.6%) were treated successfully by URS alone, as were 81 of 86 patients (94.4%) in Group 2. Impacted stones were also observed in 17 patients from Group 2. In these patients, endoscopic observation revealed edematous inflammation above and below the calculus. Ureteral perforation occurred in one patient from Group 2, which required surgical repair. There was no significant difference in the stone-free rates of the two groups t = 1.4 < 1.96t( infinity,0.05). CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate that when ESWL fails, URS and pneumatic lithotripsy is as safe and effective as primary URS. Pneumatic lithotripsy also seems to be an effective treatment modality for impacted stones.