输尿管镜钬激光碎石术与体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管结石的临床比较

陈波特; 张小明; 杨槐; 胡卫列; 吴实坚; 庄桂武

doi:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1420.2014.02.003

输尿管镜钬激光碎石术与体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管结石的临床比较

- 1. 广州军区广州总医院泌尿外科研究所, 解放军下尿路疾病诊治中心(广州, 510010);
- 2. 广州中医药大学
基金项目:
广东省自然科学基金(编号S2012040007209)

详细信息

通讯作者: 杨槐, E-mail:yanghuai6512@163.com

中图分类号: R693.4

收稿日期: 2013-06-13

Comparison between ureteroscopy with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi

- 1 Institute of Urology, Guangzhou General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command, Guangzhou, 510010, China;
- 2 Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine

More Information

Corresponding author: YANG Huai, E-mail: yanghuai6512@163.com

Received Date: 13 June 2013

摘要

摘要: 目的: 比较输尿管镜钬激光碎石术(LL)与体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗输尿管结石的临床疗效和安全性。方法: 总结2008年1月~2012年9月于我院泌尿外科住院治疗的465例输尿管结石患者的临床资料,采用LL治疗输尿管结石196例,其中结石直径>1.0 cm者104例, ≤ 1.0 cm者92例;采用ESWL治疗269例,其中结石直径>1.0 cm者128例, ≤ 1.0cm者141例。比较两者治疗输尿管结石的手术时间、术后3个月结石排净率及手术并发症发生率的差异。结果: LL组治疗结石直径>1.0 cm和 ≤ 1.0 cm的平均手术时间均明显少于ESWL组相应的平均手术时间,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);对直径>1.0 cm的输尿管结石,LL组术后3个月结石排净率为93.3%,明显高于ESWL组的69.5%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);而对于直径 ≤ 1.0 cm的输尿管结石,LL组和ESWL组术后3个月结石排净率分别为91.3%和89.4%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。ESWL治疗上段结石的有效率为87.2%,明显高于中下段结石74.3%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);而LL组的有效率分别为92.0%和92.6%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。LL组并发症发生率为4.6%,ESWL组无明显并发症发生。结论: 综合考虑,对直径 ≤ 1.0 cm的输尿管结石,尤其是上段结石,推荐ESWL治疗;而对直径>1 cm的输尿管结石,尤其是中下段结石,建议首选输尿管镜钬激光碎石术。
- 输尿管结石 /
- 体外冲击波碎石术 /
- 钬激光碎石术 /
- 输尿管镜碎石术
Abstract: Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy (LL) and extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for ureteral calculi. Method:The data of 465 patients from January 2008 to September 2012 were analyzed. Ureteroscopy with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsies were taken in 196 patients including 104 cases with diameter of stones > 1.0 cm and 92 cases with diameter of stones ≤ 1.0 cm. ESWL were taken in 269 patients including 128 cases with diameter of stones > 1.0 cm and 141 cases with diameter of stones ≤ 1.0 cm. The operation time, stone-free rate and incidence rate of complications were compared between the two groups. Result:The mean operation time of LL group for stones > 1.0 cm and ≤ 1.0 cm were shorter than those with ESWL (both P<0.01).The stone-free rate after three months in patints with stones > l.0 cm was 93.3% for LL group. It was higher than 69.5% with ESWL (P<0.01). For calculi ≤ 1.0 cm, the stone-free rate with LL and ESWL were 91.3% and 89.4% respectively (P>0.05). The stone-free rate after three months were 92.0% and 92.6% in the proximal and middle-distal ureteral calculi respectively without significant difference (P>0.05) in LL group. While in ESWL group were 87.2% and 74.3% respectively (P<0.01). The complication rate was 4.6% in the group of LL, while in the ESWL group no complications occurred. Conclusion: All things taken into consideration, for calculi ≤ 1.0 cm in diameter especially for the proximal ureteral calculi, ESWL is worth recommending. For calculi > 1.0 cm in diameter especially for the middle-distal ureteral calculi, ureteroscopy with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy is the best choice.Key words ureteral calculi; extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy; YAG laser lithotripsy; ureteroscopic lithotripsy
- ureteral calculi /
- extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy /
- YAG laser lithotripsy /
- ureteroscopic lithotripsy

HTML全文

参考文献(14)

[1]	叶章群, 张晓春, 李虹, 等.尿石症诊断治疗指南[M]//那彦群, 叶章群, 孙光.中国泌尿外科疾病诊断治疗指南.北京:人民卫生出版社, 2011:209-241.
[2]	那彦群, 郭震华.实用泌尿外科学[M].北京:人民卫生出版社, 2011:243-252.
[3]	李强, 陈红其, 刘奎, 等.输尿管镜钬激光与体外冲击波治疗直径较大的输尿管结石疗效比较[J].南京医科大学学报, 2011, 31 (11):1683-1685.
[4]	韩先知, 吴开攸.体外冲击波碎石技术[M].北京:人民卫生出版社, 2004:123-124.
[5]	Verze P, Imbimbo C, Cancelmo G, et al.Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy VS ureteroscopy as first-line therapy for patients with single, distal ureteric stones:aprospective randomized study[J].BJU Int, 2010, 106 (11):1748-1752.
[6]	Shoh O D, Matlaga B R, Assimos D G, et al.Selecting treatment for distal ureteral calculi:shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy[J].Rev Urol, 2003, 5 (1):40-44.
[7]	Singh I, Gupta N P, Hemal A K, et al.Impact of power index, hydroureteronephrosis, stone size, and composition on the efficacy of in situ boosted ESWL for primary proximal ureteral calculi[J].Urology, 2001, 58 (1):16-22.
[8]	李应忠, 王健, 杨华, 等.钬激光碎石术、气压弹道碎石术、体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管结石的疗效比较[J].中国医师进修杂志, 2008, 31 (29):47-49.
[9]	向阳, 肖迪, 孙永昌, 等.输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术与体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管结石的疗效比较与选择[J].临床泌尿外科杂志, 2011, 26 (11):861-863.
[10]	熊林, 邹茜, 余书勇, 等.输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石120例[J].中国内镜杂志, 2012, 18 (5):533-535.
[11]	赵永斌, 张利朝, 邓志雄, 等.腔内钬激光治疗输尿管结石并发息肉115例分析[J].临床泌尿外科杂志, 2010, 25 (1):14-15.
[12]	张连会, 沈思瑶, 薄隽杰, 等.钬激光治疗输尿管结石并发狭窄的处理策略[J].临床泌尿外科杂志, 2010, 25 (4):265-268.
[13]	庞自力, 肖传国, 曾浦清, 等.钬激光治疗泌尿系结石[J].中华外科杂志, 2004, 42 (2):92-93.
[14]	Argyropoulos A N, Tolley D A.SWL is more cost-effective than ureteroscopy and Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for uriteric stones:A comparative analysis for a tertiary referral centre[J].Br J Med Surg Urol, 2010, 3 (1):65-71.