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

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1.0cm者104例,≤1.0cm者92例;采用ESWL治疗269例,其中结石直径1.0cm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1.0cm和≤1.0cm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(P0.01);对直径1.0cm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(P0.01);而对于直径≤1.0cm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(P0.05)。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(P0.01);而LL组的有效率分别为92.0%和92.6%,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。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≤1.0cm的输尿管结石,尤其是上段结石,推荐ESWL治疗;而对直径1cm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。     

输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗体外冲击波碎石失败的输尿管结石89例报告

目的探讨输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗体外冲击波碎石(extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy,ESWL)失败的输尿管结石的临床效果。方法应用输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗ESWL失败的输尿管结石89例。69例合并息肉或被肉芽组织包裹,同时钬激光消融息肉;合并结石远端输尿管狭窄4例,开放手术切除狭窄段。结果一次碎石成功81例,成功率91%。1周内结石排净67例,其余14例2周内结石排净。4例结石被冲入肾盂,术后2周经ESWL后排出;4例输尿管镜置入失败,经开放手术治愈。结论输尿管镜钬激光碎石具有安全高效性,可作为ESWL治疗失败的输尿管结石首选治疗方法。     

比较输尿管镜钬激光碎石术和体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管结石的效果

目的探讨和比较输尿管镜钬激光碎石术和体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗输尿管结石的效果。方法将60例输尿管结石患者按照不同手术方式分为2组。对照组(32例)实施ESWL,观察组(28例)应用输尿管镜钬激光碎石术。结果 (1)观察组手术时间短于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。(2)观察组输尿管中下段结石清除率高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。(3)2组输尿管上段结石清除率比较,差异无统计学意义。(4)对于直径1cm的结石,观察组结石清除率高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。对于直径≤1cm的结石,2组结石清除率差异无统计学意义。(5)2组术后并发症差异无统计学意义。结论与ESWL比较,输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管中下段结石及结石直径1cm的患者,不仅手术时间短,且结石清除率高。对输尿管上段结石患者,输尿管镜钬激光碎石术与ESWL均有较好疗效。可根据患者的具体病情及医院的医疗设备合理选择。     

输尿管硬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效果比较

目的探讨输尿管硬镜下钬激光碎石术和体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管结石的临床效果。方法2004年8月～2008年3月应用输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石541例和ESWL治疗输尿管结石334例。比较两组手术时间、结石排净率、手术并发症发生率指标的差异。结果ESWL组334例中283例一次碎石成功，成功率84．7％；输尿管钬激光组541例中516例一次碎石成功，成功率95．4％，均未见严重的并发症。结论输尿管硬镜下钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石疗效优于ESWL。     

输尿管肾镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石

目的　探讨输尿管肾镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石的有效性和安全性。　方法　回顾性分析 186例应用半硬性输尿管肾镜和钬激光碎石术治疗的输尿管结石患者资料。男 12 3例 ,女 6 3例 ;平均年龄 5 1岁。上段结石 5 1例 ,中段 6 4例 ,下段 71例。结石直径 0 .6～ 2 .5cm ,平均 1.3cm。　结果　单次碎石成功率为 96 % (179/ 186 ) ,其中上段结石单次碎石成功率为 90 % (46 / 5 1) ,中、下段为99 % (133/ 135 )。平均手术时间 2 8min ,术中无输尿管穿孔等并发症发生。 179例术后平均住院 1.2d。术后随访 2周～ 3个月 ,结石排净率 99% (177/ 179) ,肾盂积水由术前 (3.6± 0 .7)cm降至 (1.5± 0 .4 )cm(P <0 .0 1) ,无输尿管狭窄发生。　结论　输尿管肾镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石高效、安全 ,可作为输尿管结石特别是中下段结石首选的治疗方法。     

输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石536例报告

目的探讨输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石的效果。方法回顾性分析536例输尿管结石，直径为0．5～2．0cm，均行输尿管硬镜钬激光碎石术治疗。结石合并息肉形成153例，采用钬激光汽化切割息肉。术后放置双J管2～6周。结果491例一次性碎石成功，成功率为91．6％（491／536），手术时间为15-75min，平均32min。术后1周结石排净率为72．5％（356／491），术后住院时间为1～4d，平均2．5d。结论输尿管镜钬激光碎石术是治疗输尿管结石安全有效的方法。     

钬激光治疗ESWL失败的输尿管上段结石78例分析

目的探讨输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗体外冲击波碎石（extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy,ESWL）失败的输尿管上段结石的临床效果。方法回顾性分析应用输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗ESWL失败的输尿管上段结石78例患者资料。结果输尿管上段结石并发炎性息肉者67例（86%）,碎石同时钬激光消融息肉。有输尿管扭曲、狭窄者16例（21%）。一次碎石成功63例,成功率81%。1周内结石排净46例,其余17例4周内结石排净。无输尿管穿孔、撕脱等严重并发症。11例结石冲回肾盂,经EWSL或经皮肾镜钬激光碎石术成功。4例置镜失败,行开放手术治愈。结论输尿管镜钬激光碎石安全有效,可作为ESWL治疗失败的输尿管上段结石首选治疗方法。     

输尿管软镜钬激光碎石术治疗体外冲击波碎石术失败的输尿管上段结石

目的:评价输尿管软镜钬激光碎石术治疗体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)失败的输尿管上段结石的疗效。方法:回顾性分析2013年6月～2017年6月我院采用输尿管软镜钬激光碎石术治疗ESWL失败的输尿管上段结石48例。结石最大直径为0.6～1.5 cm。手术方法首先将结石推入肾脏内,然后沿导丝直接置入纤维输尿管软镜到达肾盂,找到结石以200μm光纤和16 W功率钬激光碎石。结果:46例患者顺利一次性完成手术,手术成功率为95.83%。术后4周拔除双J管,2个月后复查B超和或平扫CT。37例结石全部排尽;7例复查有2～4 mm的小结石,无需再次行ESWL;2例残留结石直径4 mm,但未接受进一步治疗。所有患者无输尿管穿孔及大出血等并发症发生。结论:输尿管软镜钬激光碎石术治疗ESWL失败的输尿管上段结石可安全有效地清除结石,尤其适用于结石体积较小和无明显肾积水的结石。可作为输尿管上段结石ESWL失败后的一种有效补救性治疗措施。     

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.     

输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石52例报告

目的:探讨输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石的临床效果.方法:采用输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石患者52例,其中双侧输尿管上段结石2例,共计左侧30例侧,右侧24例侧.结石大小(0.4～1.7)cm×(0.6～2.0)cm.结果:手术成功率98.1%,平均手术时间约28 min(17～65 min).1例侧因输尿管口狭窄进镜困难改行开放手术.术后1个月复查,一次性碎石排净率为90.6%,5例侧有结石残留患者保留双J管行ESWL治疗,结石排出.术后3个月复查,所有患者患侧肾积水均明显减轻.结论:在熟练掌握输尿管镜操作技术的前提下,采用输尿管镜钬激光治疗输尿管上段结石是一种安全、有效的方法.     

Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

PURPOSE: We compared the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy with intracorporeal holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (Dornier Medical Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia) for proximal ureteral calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 67 patients underwent 81 primary procedures, including in situ ESWL with a DoLi 50 lithotriptor (Dornier Medical Systems, Inc.) or ureteroscopy combined with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi. RESULTS: Of the primary procedures 81 involved proximal ureteral calculi, including 35 done for calculi 1 cm. or greater. The initial stone-free rate in patients with calculi 1 cm. or greater was 93% for ureteroscopy combined with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy and 50% for in situ ESWL. The efficiency quotient for treating proximal ureteral calculi 1 cm. or greater was calculated as 0.76 for ureteroscopic lithotripsy and 0.43 for ESWL. For proximal ureteral calculi less than 1 cm. the initial stone-free rate was 100% and 80% for ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and ESWL, respectively. The efficiency quotient was calculated as 0.81 for ureteroscopic lithotripsy and 0.72 for ESWL for treating proximal ureteral calculi less than 1 cm. There were no major complications in either group and all procedures were performed on an outpatient basis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that ureteroscopy combined with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy is an acceptable treatment modality for all proximal ureteral calculi and excellent results are achieved for calculi 1 cm. or larger. Although the stone-free rate was better for smaller stones with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy, efficiency quotients were similar. Therefore, ESWL should remain first line therapy for proximal ureteral calculi less than 1 cm. because of less morbidity, and a lesser anesthesia and analgesic requirement.     

Treatment of ureteric lithiasis with retrograde ureteroscopy and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy vs extracorporeal lithotripsy

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the efficiency of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs retrograde ureteroscopy and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy, as ESWL is successful in 67–90% of cases but endoscopic lithotripsy with pneumatic lithotrites or lasers is successful in 90–96% of distal ureteric calculi, and holmium:YAG lithotripsy is effective in proximal ureteric calculi.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From April 2006 to April 2008 we assessed 164 patients undergoing ureteric lithiasis in two homogeneous groups: group A included 83 treated with retrograde ureteroscopy and holmium:YAG endoscopic lithotripsy, and group B, 81 treated by ESWL. For laser lithotripsy we used 2071 mJ pulses at 3–6 Hz, with a mean of 1105 pulses and 2.5 kJ of total energy. ESWL was carried out using 37.5–87.5 mJ shock waves, a mean of 3650 shock waves and 187.6 J, with a radioscopy time of 1–4 min. The results were assessed after 3 weeks with plain films and ultrasonography, or urography. The efficiency of each procedure was assessed by calculating the relative risk, and results compared using the chi‐square or Student’s t‐test. The efficiency quotient (EQ) was determined for both procedures, and the focal applied energy quotient (FAEQ) used to assess ESWL.

RESULTS

The overall success rate for retrograde ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy was 96.4% (80/83 patients), with an EQ of 0.52; a JJ catheter was placed in 67 patients. The success rate for the first ESWL session was 48%, and after repeat ESWL was 64% (52/81 patients), giving an EQ of 0.39. For successful treatments the FAEQ was 9.22, vs 6.47 for the failures (P < 0.005). There was a significant difference (P < 0.001) favouring laser lithotripsy, with an absolute benefit of 46% (95% confidence interval 33.8–57.9%), and number needed to treat of 2 (2–3), but no significant differences for lumbar ureteric calculi.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic lithotripsy with the holmium laser is more effective than ESWL, but for lumbar ureteric calculi ESWL is therapeutically recommended as it is less invasive.     

输尿管结石ESWL失败改腔内钬激光碎石术的疗效观察

目的 探讨输尿管结石ESWL失败后采用腔内钬激光碎石术的临床疗效。方法 自2001年10月至2002年8月，对28例输尿管结石(ESWL失败)行输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术。结果 26例经输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术治愈，治愈率92．8％(26／28)；1例结石上移，辅以ESWL治愈；1例因输尿管纤维性扭曲改开放手术。结论 输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术安全、有效、方便，可以作为输尿管结石的首选治疗。     

输尿管硬镜下钬激光碎石取石术治疗输尿管上段结石112例

【摘要】〓目的〓探讨输尿管硬镜下钬激光碎石取石术治疗输尿管上段结石的临床效果及安全性。 方法〓应用输尿管硬镜下钬激光碎石取石术治疗112例输尿管上段结石患者。男63例,女49例,年龄18~87岁(46.7±13.6岁),左侧61例,右侧46例,双侧5例。结石长径0.7~2.2 cm(1.2±0.5 cm)。26例合并输尿管息肉,31例曾行体外冲击波碎石术,所有患侧肾脏均合并不同程度肾积水。 结果〓手术成功率88.4%(99/112),手术时间15~80 min(33.6±16.8 min),术后住院天数3~14天(4.7±2.1天)。所有患者均无严重肉眼血尿、输尿管穿孔、粘膜撕裂、输尿管镜石街形成等并发症。3例患者出现畏寒、高热,其中1例发展为尿源性脓毒血症,予以积极抗感染治疗后,症状逐渐缓解。结论〓输尿管硬镜下钬激光碎石取石术治疗输尿管上段结石是安全,有效的治疗方法。     

输尿管镜联合钬激光治疗输尿管上段结石:附205例报告

目的 探讨输尿管镜联合钬激光治疗输尿管上段结石的效果和安全性.方法 回顾性分析205例输尿管上段结石患者行输尿管硬镜钬激光碎石治疗的临床资料,其中男91例,女114例,结石位于单侧188例,双侧17例,炎性息肉引起输尿管腔明显狭窄者12例.结石长径0.8～1.4 cm.结果 192例一次性碎石成功,单次碎石成功率为93.7%(192/205).9例有较大结石碎片(4～6 mm)残留于肾或输尿管内,4例在碎石过程中结石冲入肾内,其中1例较大结石(1.4 cm)移位至肾盂后改行PCNL,其余3例留置双J管改行ESWL,均治愈.19例合并炎性息肉同期行激光烧灼.手术时间15~90min,平均30 min.住院时间2~9 d,平均3.5 d.198例患者在门诊获得随访,随访时间3～24个月,平均6个月,结石均排尽.结论 输尿管镜联合钬激光治疗输尿管上段结石的一种比较理想的腔内碎石技术,其碎石成功率高,并发症发生率低,创伤小,患者术后恢复快,而且可同期处理结石合并炎性息肉和狭窄.     

应用拦石网输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石

目的 探讨应用拦石网输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石的临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析输尿管镜下拦石网配合钬激光碎石术治疗58例输尿管上段结石患者的临床资料.男36例,女22例,平均47.2岁.结石横径为3～23 mm,纵径为3～25mm.结果 本组单次碎石成功率93.1%(54/58).2例结石上移入肾内,1例因输...     

经皮肾微造瘘输尿管镜钬激光碎石结合ESWL治疗复杂性肾结石

目的：探讨经皮肾微造瘘输尿管镜钬激光碎石结合ESWL治疗复杂性肾结石的效果。方法：对26例复杂性肾结石患者采用经皮肾微造瘘输尿管镜钬激光碎石结合一次或多次ESWL碎石治疗。结果：经皮肾微造瘘输尿管镜钬激光碎石结合一次ESWL治疗后结石清除率为73．1％,二次ESWL治疗后结石清除率为84．6％,三次ESWL治疗后结石清除率为88．5％。结论：经皮。肾微造瘘输尿管镜钬激光碎石结合一次或多次ESWL治疗复杂性肾结石是安全、有效的方法。     

A comparison of holmium:YAG laser with Lithoclast lithotripsy in ureteral calculi fragmentation

PURPOSE: Among various intracorporeal lithotriptors, Lithoclast (EMS, Switzerland) has become the widely used tool for the treatment of urinary stones. Recently, the holmium:YAG laser has been used with a wide range of potential urological applications, including intracorporeal lithotripsy of urinary calculi. The purpose of the present study is to compare Lithoclast with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in ureteral calculi fragmentation. METHODS: Out of 51 patients with ureteral calculi, 26 underwent Lithoclast lithotripsy and 25 holmium:YAG lithotripsy using a 8/9.8F rigid ureteroscope. There were no changes to the ureteroscopes, video monitors, baskets or irrigation devices during the study period. RESULTS: There were no differences in patient age, sex, stone size and location of stones between these groups. The immediate stone-free rates were 96.0% in the holmium:YAG group and 73.1% in the Lithoclast group (P < 0.05). The 3-month stone-free rates were 96.0% and 84.6%, respectively (P = 0.350). The mean operation time and mean period of postoperative hospitalization in the holmium:YAG group (49.8 min and 1.0 days, respectively) were shorter than those of the Lithoclast counterpart (76.9 min and 2.5 days, respectively). Post-treatment complications, such as ureteral perforation, were encountered in only two patients who underwent Lithoclast. CONCLUSIONS: Holmium:YAG lithotripsy was associated with shorter operation time and postoperative hospitalization period. These data also suggest that holmium:YAG lithotripsy was safe and more effective than Lithoclast lithotripsy in the aspect of immediate stone free rate. We believe that holmium:YAG laser is an excellent treatment modality for managing ureteral calculi.     

Safety and efficacy of holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy in patients with bleeding diatheses

PURPOSE: We assessed the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating upper urinary tract calculi in patients with known and uncorrected bleeding diathesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts at 2 tertiary stone centers to identify patients with known bleeding diathesis who were treated with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi. A total of 25 patients (29 upper urinary tract calculi) underwent ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy. Bleeding diathesis involved warfarin administration for various conditions in 17 patients, liver dysfunction in 3, thrombocytopenia in 4 and von Willebrand's disease in 1. The mean international normalized ratio, platelet count and bleeding time were 2.3, 50 x 109/l. and greater than 16 minutes in patients on warfarin and in those with liver dysfunction, thrombocytopenia and von Willebrand's disease, respectively. RESULTS: Overall the stone-free rate was 96% (27 of 28 cases) and 29 of 30 procedures were completed successfully without significant complication. In a patient treated concomitantly with electrohydraulic lithotripsy significant retroperitoneal hemorrhage required blood transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Upper tract urinary calculi in patients with uncorrected bleeding diathesis can be safely managed by contemporary small caliber ureteroscopes and the holmium laser as the only modality of lithotripsy. Ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy without preoperatively correcting hemostatic parameters limits the risk of thromboembolic complications and costs associated with an extended hospital stay. Avoiding electrohydraulic lithotripsy is crucial for decreasing bleeding complications in this cohort of patients.