ESWL与输尿管镜碎石联合处理上尿路结石

目的：探讨对部分上尿路结石采用ESWI．与输尿管镜碎石联合处理的方法。方法：对70例上尿路结石患者采用ESWI。与输尿管镜下钬激光碎石（URS）联合交替治疗。其中输尿管结石48例,。肾结石22例。结果：结石总排净率为91．4％00（64／70）,其中输尿管结石排净率为95．8％（46／48）,肾结石排净率为81．8％（18／22）。3例治疗失败,其中1例输尿管结石因输尿管狭窄无法入镜;另2例肾结石,1例因交替治疗次数过多中途停止治疗,1例因结石硬度过大ESWI,不佳,均改为PCNL术。结论：ESW[。与URS联合交替进行的疗法处理上尿路结石,避免了创伤性治疗,扩大了ESWI,治疗范围,降低了URS手术难度,缩短了URS操作时间,提高了结石排净率,患者创伤微小、恢复快、并发症少,是治疗上尿路结石,特别是部分复杂性上尿路结石较理想的方法之一。     

逆行与顺行输尿管镜术处理输尿管上段嵌顿性结石的疗效比较

目的比较逆行与顺行输尿管镜术处理输尿管上段嵌顿性结石的疗效,并对其安全性与有效性进行评价。方法采用输尿管镜术共治疗输尿管上段嵌顿性结石246例,其中逆行经尿道入路治疗186例,顺行经皮肾微造瘘入路60例。结果逆行经尿道入路手术成功173例（93%）,平均手术时间35min,平均住院时间5d,无石率81.2%,22例需ESWL辅助治疗,出现手术并发症9例（4.8%）;顺行经皮肾微造瘘入路手术成功60例（100%）,平均手术时间55min,平均住院时间8d,无石率100%,无手术并发症发生。结论逆行与顺行输尿管镜术处理输尿管上段嵌顿性结石均有较高的手术成功率与术后无石率;顺行入路的安全性与有效性更好,但手术时间及住院时间更长。     

Antegrade ureterolitholapaxy in the treatment of obstructing or incarcerated proximal ureteric stones

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and retrograde ureterorenoscopy (RU) have transformed the management of ureteric calculi. Nevertheless, patients with obstructing proximal ureteric calculi are not suitable for ESWL or RU. From January 1986 to September 1988, 17 patients with fixed upper ureteric stones underwent antegrade renoureteroscopy and percutaneous surgery. The technique was effective in removing incarcerated proximal ureteric calculi: all patients were stone-free at follow-up 3 months later.     

Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi: a prospective study.

146 patients whose ureteral stones did not pass spontaneously participated in a prospective study on optimal management. Patients were offered two treatment options: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS). The stone was treated with the technique preferred by the patient. In case of treatment failure after first-line therapy, patients again could decide on how to proceed. Stone analysis could be obtained from 72.6% patients. ESWL was the primary treatment in 66.4% patients. In 2 patients, ESWL was the secondary treatment after failed URS. URS was the first-line therapy in 33.6% patients. In 29 patients URS was done after failed ESWL. For analgesia, sedoanalgesia or spinal anesthesia were used. Analgesia was required in 74.2% ESWL and 100% URS sessions. Following ESWL, 70.1% patients became stone free. In 29.9% ESWL failed. Distal stones had a higher failure rate than proximal or mid-ureteral calculi. Distal stones treated without success were significantly larger than those treated successfully. Failures were switched to URS. Stone analysis could be obtained in 26 patients with failed ESWL: 23/26 consisted of pure whewellite or mixed whewellite stones. Clinically relevant complications were not observed. After URS, 94.9% of the patients became stone free. In distal stones, the stone-free rate was 97.5%. There was only 1 relevant complication: a proximal ureteral lesion requiring surgical repair. Our study demonstrates that URS is a safe and highly effective treatment option for ureteral stones. In patients with distal ureteral stones, it should be offered as a first-line treatment. When whewellite is expected as the stone mineral, URS is the treatment of choice.     

Role of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Management of Upper Ureteric Stones

Introduction

The treatment options for upper ureteric stones range from open surgeries to minimally invasive and non invasive techniques. Presently the two most frequently used options for upper ureteric calculi that require intervention are extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureterorenoscopy (URS) with contact lithotripsy applied by attaining endoscopic access to the calculi.

In situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for primary ureteric calculi

Objective. To determine the efficacy of the Lithostar lithotriptor for the in situ treatment of primary ureteric stones.Methods. We reviewed, retrospectively, our experience with 283 patients with primary ureteric stones treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) using the Lithostar lithotriptor. No attempts were made to manipulate the stones. The majority of the patients were treated using only intravenous analgesia. Auxiliary measures were used in 84 patients (29.6%). There were 112 patients (39.6%) with upper, 53 (18.7%) with middle, and 118 (41.7%) with lower ureteric stones.Results. A single ESWL session was needed for 200 patients (70.6%), two for 49 patients (17.3%), and more than two sessions for 34 patients (12%). Of the 248 patients who had adequate follow-up, 220 (88.7%) were stone free, 14 (5.65%) had some residual stone, while 14 (5.65%) patients failed to respond to the treatment. Patients' gender and body weight influenced the treatment and the clearance rate numerically without any statistical significance. The stone site was the most significant factor influencing the final result. Stones larger than 10 mm and the presence of hydronephrosis adversely affected the treatment.Conclusions. In situ ESWL of ureteral stones with the Lithostar device is a convenient and efficient method of treating calculi within the whole length of the ureter without the need for any manipulation.     

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) monotherapy for stones in lower ureter.

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been accepted as the method of choice for most upper urinary tract calculi. However, in cases of stones in the lower ureter, ureteroscopic procedures have generally been preferred. Using the Dornier HM3 lithotriptor with modifications in the patient's position, we were able to successfully treat 155 unselected cases of lower ureteral calculi. The average stone size was 9.6 mm (range 5-23 mm). One hundred forty-three patients had stones located below the lower margin of the sacroiliac joint. These patients were placed in a supine position. The stones were visualized radiologically without use of a ureteral catheter in 78 percent of the patients; in 22 percent a ureteral catheter was inserted prior to ESWL to aid in stone localization. In 145 patients (94%) treatment was completed in one session; 10 patients (6%) required two sessions. Of the patients, 38 percent were free of stones one day after ESWL; 97 percent became stone free within three months, and only 3 patients required endoscopic manipulation, after ESWL. Twelve patients had stones in the midureter overlying the sacroileum. They were placed in the prone position, and the calculi were visualized with the aid of a ureteral catheter. All these patients became free of stones one month after treatment. There were no significant treatment-related complications except for bacteremia in 1 case. In view of the remarkable efficacy, negligible complication rate, and shorter hospital stay as compared to ureteroscopic stone manipulations, we recommend high energy ESWL as the primary monotherapy of mid and lower ureteral stones.     

Primary in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteric calculi: results with a third-generation lithotripter.

OBJECTIVE: To review the results of primary in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the treatment of ureteric stones using a third-generation lithotripter, the Dornier MFL 5000 (Dornier Medizentechnic, Germany). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised a retrospective review of treatment outcome in 180 patients with 196 stones who were treated with primary in situ ESWL, assessing the success of this approach and establishing reasons for failure. RESULTS: At the 3-month follow-up, 88% of patients were stone-free; 21 patients failed ESWL and were treated by ureteroscopic stone extraction with no complications. Stone-free rates were 90% for upper ureteric, 89% for middle-third and 86% for lower-third calculi. Twenty-one patients required auxiliary procedures in the form of JJ stenting or nephrostomy. Failure of ESWL was associated with stone size (>1.3 cm) but not location or inadequate treatment. CONCLUSION: Where prompt access to ESWL is available, primary in situ ESWL remains an effective form of treatment for all ureteric calculi, although stone-free rates are lower for larger stones.     

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, endourology and open surgery: the management and follow-up of 200 patients with urinary calculi

The management and follow up of 200 consecutive patients with renal and ureteric calculi are presented. The primary treatment of 185 (92.5%) was by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), of whom three (1.6)%) with large calculi underwent percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) prior to ESWL as a planned combined procedure. Twelve (6%) were treated by PCNL or ureterorenoscopy (URS) as their definitive treatment and three (1.5%) by conventional open renal and ureteric surgery. The average in-patient stay was 3.8 days and most returned to normal activity within one day of discharge. Of the 185 patients 102 (55%) required no analgesia after treatment by ESWL, 29 (15.6%) required parenteral analgesia and the rest were comfortable with oral non-narcotic medication. Thirty (16%) required auxillary treatment by percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN), PCNL and URS following ESWL for obstructive complications from stone particles. Two required further ESWL and one PCNL at three months for large fragments. Overall, open surgery was required for only 1% of renal calculi and 13% of ureteric stones. These results are consistant with the extensive West German experience confirming that most urinary calculi are now best managed by ESWL and endoscopic techniques. Where these facilities are available open surgery should only be necessary for less than 5% of upper urinary tract stones.     

Management of ureteral stones by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. 3 years of experience

From April 1985 to March 1987 181 patients with ureteral stones were treated by means of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Management for proximal calculi changed from in situ ESWL treatment (group n = 27) or placement of a ureteral catheter below calculi (group II, n = 30) to retrograde stone manipulation into renal pelvis (group IV, n = 52) or ESWL treatment under intraoperative irrigation of saline in cases where repositioning failed (group III, n = 50). The best stone-free rate for upper ureteral stones was obtained in group IV with 96% after 6 weeks, presenting also the shortest hospital stay (4.2 days) and lowest quota of postoperative auxiliary procedures (2%). Stones, not being dislodged into renal pelvis (49%), could be treated successfully in 86% by irrigation with saline during ESWL (group III). The stone-free rate decreased in patients with in situ treatment (group I: 67%) or ureteral catheter placement (group II: 83%). Treatment of these stones increased the need of postoperative ancillary procedures to approximately 30%. For distal ureteral stones ESWL and preoperative Zeiss placement achieved a stone-free rate of 95%.     

Minimally invasive treatment of ureteric calculi using modern techniques

Between July 1985 and July 1986, 226 upper and 62 distal ureteric calculi were treated. In situ extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the treatment of choice for upper and distal ureteric calculi, with success rates of 81 and 76% respectively. Retrograde manipulation of the calculus was undertaken only when in situ ESWL was impossible because of difficulty in localisation. Although ESWL after successful mobilisation was successful in 95% of patients, retrograde mobilisation was possible in only 80%. Antegrade ureterorenoscopy via a percutaneous nephrostomy was performed to avoid open surgery if retrograde mobilisation was not feasible, and was successful in 90%. Two second generation lithotripters, the modified Dornier HM3+ and the Wolf Piezolith 2200, both suitable for treatment without anaesthesia, were compared in terms of efficacy. In situ ESWL of upper ureteric calculi was successful in 70.6% with the HM3+ and 37.2% with the Piezolith 2200. In situ ESWL of middle ureteric calculi was successful in 81.8% with the modified HM3+, while in situ treatment of middle ureteric calculi was impossible with the Piezolith 2200 because of inadequate ultrasound localisation. Distal ureteric calculi were treated successfully in 71.4% with the modified Dornier HM3+ and in 64% with the Piezolith 2200. We report our experience of ESWL using the prone position for iliac ureteric calculi; 8 of 10 patients were treated successfully in situ.     

Effect of diuresis on extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of ureteric calculi

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of diuresis during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment of ureteric calculi. The purpose is to improve stone fragmentation and clearance rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and six consecutive patients with ureteric calculi at different levels were treated by ESWL using Siemens Lithostar 2 machine. Patients have been randomized into two treatment groups. The first group was treated by standard ESWL and included 54 patients. The second group was treated by ESWL with diuresis during the ESWL session. Shock waves were given at a rate of 90 shocks/minute with energy starting from 10 up to 18 KV. During the ESWL session the patient belonging to the second group received i.v. infusion of 500 ml normal saline containing 40 mg furosemide as a diuretic. The stone fragmentation and clearance rates were the two end points for evaluation. RESULTS: The average number of sessions per stone was 1.92 and 1.5 and the average number of shocks per stone was 6295 and 5300 for the first and second treatment groups respectively. Stone fragmentation rate was 47/54 (87%) and 50/52 (96.2%) and the stone clearance (success) rate was 47/54 (87%) and 48/52 (92.3%) for the first and the second groups respectively. Analysis of the results in relation to stone location showed that the two treatment groups were comparable for upper and middle ureteric calculi. However for distal ureteric stones, the addition of diuresis during ESWL was associated with a lower mean number of ESWL sessions and shocks per stone compared with standard ESWL: 1.38 and 4950 for ESWL with diuresis compared with 2.9 and 8544 for standard ESWL respectively. The stone fragmentation and 3-month clearance (success) rates were clearly higher: 93.8% and 87.5% respectively for ESWL with diuresis compared with 70.6% (for both fragmentation and clearance) with standard ESWL. CONCLUSIONS: Diuresis is a useful, inexpensive and safe adjunct to ESWL of ureteric stones. It markedly improves the results of ESWL treatment of distal ureteric stones compared with standard ESWL.     

Treatment of ureteral calculi by extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. UCLA experience

One hundred sixteen patients underwent extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for ureteral stones. In 108 patients, the stones were manipulated pre-ESWL whereas 8 patients underwent ESWL without prior stone manipulation. Ureteral lubrication using a 2% Xylocaine jelly solution greatly facilitated the retrograde advancement of the calculus or the passage of ureteral catheters alongside the stone. ESWL disintegrated all but 4 stones for an overall success rate of 96.6 per cent. It is considered that the combination of retrograde ureteral stone repositioning and ESWL is a highly successful alternative in the management of ureteral calculi.     

Laser lithotripsy of the difficult ureteral calculus: results in 122 patients.

We studied 122 patients with ureteral calculi who could not be treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) because the stones could not be localized or focused for treatment, the patient had failed prior ESWL, the stones were impacted and in situ ESWL was likely to fail or the stones were proximal to a ureteral stricture. These patients underwent laser lithotripsy using the Candela pulsed dye laser. In 107 patients (88%) the calculi were completely fragmented with the laser alone, while 10 (8%) needed another procedure (ESWL in 8 and stone fragment extraction by basket in 2), and 5 (4%) had failed laser therapy and needed some other form of treatment (ESWL in 4 and percutaneous antegrade extraction in 1). At 3 months 116 of 122 patients (95%) were stone-free. There were 2 immediate complications (ureteral perforations) and 1 late complication (ureteral stricture). Laser lithotripsy is a safe and effective method of intracorporeal fragmentation, even of the difficult ureteral calculus, and it is a useful adjunct to ESWL.     

ESWL与输尿管镜治疗输尿管下段结石的比较

目的：比较体外冲击波碎石术（ＥＳＷＬ）与输尿管治疗输尿管下段结石的结石排净率和并发症。方法：治疗输尿管下段结石患者３９０例,其中用ＥＳＷＬ治疗２１０例,输尿管镜治疗１８０例。结果：两组患者术后１个月的结石排净率分别为７８．１％和９３．３％（Ｐ〈０．０５）;ＥＳＷＬ组的主要并发症为再次治疗率高（１１．９％）,而输尿管镜组的主要并发症为输尿管穿孔（３．３％）。结论：输尿管镜治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效优于     

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy as primary treatment for ureteric stones: a retrospective study comparing two different treatment strategies

OBJECTIVE: Our extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) lithotripter with ultrasound localization technique was replaced in 1999 by a Storz SLX-MX lithotripter with both X-ray and ultrasound detection possibilities. Before replacing our lithotripter, most ureteric stones were treated with ureteroscopy (URS); subsequently, almost all patients underwent ESWL as primary treatment. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the results of these two treatment strategies in all consecutive patients attending our hospital in 1998 and 2000 for ureteric stone treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The medical records of all patients treated for ureteric stones in 1998 and 2000 were reviewed. In 1998, 173 ureteric stones were treated. Primary treatment was URS in 124 patients, push back/ESWL in 24, ESWL in 21 and open surgery in four. In 2000, 176 ureteric stones were treated: 158 with ESWL and 18 with URS. ESWL or URS monotherapy was defined as ESWL or URS, respectively as the only stone-treatment therapy, with or without the use of a ureteric catheter or nephrostomy tube. Treatment success was defined as a stone-free ureter. RESULTS: In 1998, the success rate for URS monotherapy was 95%, with a retreatment rate (sessions per stone situation) of 1.06. Corresponding figures for ESWL monotherapy in 2000 were 90% and 1.69. All URS patients received general anaesthesia; ESWL patients received opiods. Complication rates were 6% for URS and 3% for ESWL. In the URS group, 4/8 complications were considered to be major. CONCLUSION: ESWL should be considered the first-line treatment for ureteric stones because of its non-invasive nature, lack of a requirement for general anaesthesia and low complication rates.     

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopy for the removal of small distal ureteral stones

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of small distal ureteral stones smaller or equal to 5 mm in size is still highly controversial. In distal ureteral stones larger than 5 mm in size, ureteroscopy (URS) has been shown in many studies to be superior to shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). The objective was to analyze the stone-free rate after treatment of distal ureteral stones with in situ SWL or URS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 3,857 SWL treatments were performed at our institution between 1996 and 2001. During this period 45 in situ SWL procedures were performed with the Dornier MFL 5000 lithotripter on distal ureteral stones regardless of the stone size. A total of 262 URS treatments were performed on distal ureteral stones. URS for small (5 mm or less) distal ureteral stones was performed in 110 cases. RESULTS: Distal ureteral stones smaller or equal to 5 mm in size were treated successfully stone free in 78% in one SWL session. Patients required a second SWL in 14% of the cases and 8% of the patients required a third SWL session. URS patients were successfully stone free after the procedure in 97% of the cases. Failed URS that needed an additional URS were performed in 2 and 1% of the patients had one SWL in situ treatment. CONCLUSIONS: URS treatment has shown to be the therapy of choice for distal ureteral stones. It is more effective than SWL treatment in this stone location. In experienced hands URS is a safe though even more invasive procedure than SWL. This can be expected as urologists perform more than 40 URS procedures per year.     

Ureteroscopy (URS) for ureteric calculi

Distal ureteral calculi (<5 mm) usually pass the ureter spontaneously. Ureteroscopic lithotripsy of distal ureteral calculi shows high stone-free rates with a low complication rate (4%) and is equal to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), while ESWL is the primary choice for proximal ureteric stones. Flexible endoscopes are more difficult to handle and should be used only under fluoroscopic control. They are generally used in combination with the holmium:YAG laser and the flexible Lithoclast in the proximal ureter or the renal collecting system. Overall the complication rate of URS is 9-11% with avulsion of the ureteric urothelium being the most common complication. Ureteral perforation, stricture (<1%), impaction of the instrument in the ureter with consequent ureteral laceration, extravasation of stones, and bleeding in the urogenital tract are complications of URS but are minimal in the hands of a well-trained and skilled surgeon.     

Ureterorenoskopie (URS) bei Harnsteinen

Distal ureteral calculi (<5 mm) usually pass the ureter spontaneously. Ureteroscopic lithotripsy of distal ureteral calculi shows high stone-free rates with a low complication rate (4%) and is equal to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), while ESWL is the primary choice for proximal ureteric stones. Flexible endoscopes are more difficult to handle and should be used only under fluoroscopic control. They are generally used in combination with the holmium:YAG laser and the flexible Lithoclast in the proximal ureter or the renal collecting system. Overall the complication rate of URS is 9–11% with avulsion of the ureteric urothelium being the most common complication. Ureteral perforation, stricture (<1%), impaction of the instrument in the ureter with consequent ureteral laceration, extravasation of stones, and bleeding in the urogenital tract are complications of URS but are minimal in the hands of a well-trained and skilled surgeon.     

Push and smash increases success rates in treatment of ureteric calculi by ESWL

During a 3-year period 105 patients underwent attempted retrograde manipulation for ureteric calculi into the renal pelvis prior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). The success rate of this group was compared to 93 patients receiving ESWL of ureteric calculi in situ. The method of retrograde manipulation was recorded prospectively. Retrograde flushing with a 5 F Tiemann ureteral catheter was performed after coating the proximal ureter and renal pelvis with a mixture of saline and lidocaine gel. Success rate of calculi push was 91.4%. Mean number of ESWL treatments in this group of patients was 1.4, compared to 2.1 in patients with in situ treatment. Reposition of ureteric calculi prior to ESWL treatment increases successful initial treatment and can be performed easily.