钬激光碎石术与体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管结石的疗效比较

目的　比较输尿管镜钬激光碎石术与体外冲击波碎石术 (ESWL)治疗输尿管结石的有效性和安全性。　方法　采用输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石 15 9例 16 8侧 ,其中结石直径≥ 1cm者 76侧 ,<1cm者 92侧。ESWL治疗输尿管结石 319例 334侧 ,其中结石直径≥ 1cm者 14 3侧 ,<1cm者 191侧。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　对直径≥ 1cm和 <1cm的输尿管结石钬激光碎石术治疗平均手术时间分别为 5 8min和 4 3min ,短于ESWL的平均手术时间 6 8min和 5 6min(P <0 .0 1) ;钬激光碎石术对直径≥ 1cm的输尿管结石 3个月结石排净率为 92 % ,高于ESWL的 6 1% (P <0 .0 1) ;对直径 <1cm的输尿管结石钬激光碎石术和ESWL的 3个月结石排净率分别为 95 %和 85 % (P >0 .0 5 )。钬激光碎石术组并发症发生率为 4 .8%( 8/ 16 8) ,ESWL组无明显并发症发生。　结论　输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗直径≥ 1cm的输尿管结石疗效明显优于ESWL ,而直径 <1cm的结石二者疗效差异无显著性 ,ESWL为直径 <1cm结石的首选治疗方法     

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.     

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。     

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。     

经输尿管镜钬激光治疗输尿管结石的临床分析(附350例报告)

目的 探讨经输尿管镜钬激光治疗输尿管结石的临床效果. 方法 选取2009年5月～ 2011年6月收治的350例输尿管结石患者,均行经输尿管镜钬激光碎石术. 结果 350例输尿管结石患者中321例一次碎石成功,治疗成功率为91.7％(321/350).手术时间平均48.6(20 ～ 115 )min;术后住院时间平均5.2(4 ～7)d.术中结石移位18例,其中16例留置双J管后1～4周内再行补救性体外冲击波碎石术,另2例换经输尿管软镜钬激光肾内碎石.D-J管常规留置时间为3～4周.因输尿管迂曲、狭窄不能进镜达结石部位11例,均中转开放手术取石.术中发生输尿管粘膜下损伤6例,输尿管穿孔4例.术后当天出现畏寒、发热,体温＞38.5C者19例,给予静脉抗感染和对症治疗后均恢复正常.术后结石残留造成再次输尿管梗阻6例,经再次输尿管镜碎石术后好转.术后3个月339例获随诊,结石均获清除,结石清除率达96.9％(339/350). 结论 经输尿管镜钬激光治疗输尿管结石具有安全、高效、创伤小、并发症少、成功率高、住院时间短等优点,是目前输尿管结石的最理想治疗方法.     

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。     

钬激光治疗泌尿系结石

目的 探讨输尿管镜钬激光治疗输尿管结石的有效性和安全性。方法采用输尿管镜钬激光技术治疗168例输尿管结石,其中输尿管上段结石27例,中段结石33例,下段结石108例;经尿道膀胱镜钬激光技术治疗膀胱结石12例。术后4～6周复查计算各自结石排净率(排净例数／例数)。结果输尿管上、中、下段结石的排净率分别为93％(25／27)、94％(31／33)、94％(102／108),并发症为5％(8／168);而膀胱结石的排净率为100％,无并发症。结论输尿管镜钬激光是治疗输尿管结石的有效、安全方法。     

经输尿管镜治疗输尿管上段结石失败原因的分析及对策

目的通过分析输尿管镜治疗输尿管上段结石的失败原因,提高对输尿管上段结石治疗的效果和成功率。方法我院自2003年5月至2007年6月,共经输尿管镜治疗输尿管上段结石347例,其中碎石失败83例。本组病例年龄23～65岁,平均46岁;男性49例,女性34例。66例患者在术前30d内有过肾绞痛病史。术前曾行体外冲击波碎石治疗失败者14例。术前均行静脉肾盂造影检查,结石直径0.6～1.6cm,平均1.0cm。所有病例使用STORZ产8F输尿管镜。结果1例因结石粉碎不完全,双J管放置未达肾盂,引起梗阻感染,5d后急诊开放手术治愈。3例因结石远端息肉,输尿管镜不能到达结石或术中息肉出血视野不清而中转开放手术取石。63例因结石大部或全部返入肾盂,追加体外冲击波碎石。15例因输尿管狭窄经扩张后或扭曲仍不能到达结石,其中10例中转开放手术取石,5例改行经皮肾镜取石术。1例因术中输尿管穿孔而中转开放。结论经输尿管镜治疗输尿管上段结石失败的原因较多,但通过相应的技术改进和病例选择,可以得到满意的疗效。     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi: what a powerful machine can achieve

PURPOSE: We assessed the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL, Dornier Medical Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia) for distal ureteral calculi with the HM3 (Dornier Medical Systems, Inc.) lithotriptor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 585 consecutive patients with distal ureteral calculi were treated with ESWL using an unmodified HM3 lithotriptor. Of these patients 67 referred for treatment only for whom no followup was available were excluded from further analysis. The remaining 518 cases were followed until they were radiologically documented to be stone-free or considered treatment failures. Before ESWL additional procedures were performed in 144 patients, including stone push back, ureteral catheter or Double-J (Medical Engineering Corp., New York, New York) stent placement, percutaneous nephrostomy, ureteral endoscopic maneuvers or stone basket manipulation. A total of 374 patients needed no preliminary treatment before ESWL. RESULTS: Of the 518 patients 469 (91%) were successfully treated with 1 ESWL session, while 49 (9%) needed 2 or 3. Manipulation after ESWL was performed in 22 cases, including stent placement, percutaneous nephrostomy, ureteral endoscopic stone removal and a stone basket procedure. On day 1 after ESWL 327 patients (63%) were stone-free, 158 (30%) had less than 5 mm. fragments and 33 (7%) had more than 5 mm. fragments. At 3 months the stone-free rate increased to 97%. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that ESWL for distal ureteral calculi with the powerful unmodified HM3 lithotriptor has a high success rate with a low rate of minimally traumatic manipulations before and after intervention. Results in terms of the re-treatment and stone-free rates are superior to those of any other second or third generation lithotriptor and comparable to the results of the best ureteroscopic series.     

输尿管镜钬激光治疗输尿管结石53例

目的：探讨输尿管镜钬激光治疗输尿管结石的有效性和安全性。方法：采用输尿管镜钬激光技术治疗53例(56侧)输尿管结石，其中输尿管上段结石9侧，中段结石11侧，下段结石36侧。结果：输尿管上、中、下段结石的排净率分别为89％、91％、92％，并发症为7％(4侧)。结论：输尿管镜钬激光是治疗输尿管结石的有效、安全的方法。     

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。     

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.     

Ureteric calculi in children: preliminary experience with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in children with ureteric calculi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1999 and 2003, 28 ureteroscopic laser procedures were carried out on 26 children (14 boys and 12 girls, mean age 6.5 years) with ureteric calculi. The mean (range) stone size was 1.21 (0.4-2.2) cm. At ureteroscopy the calculi were in the upper ureter in six (23%), mid-ureter in five (19%) and lower ureter in 15 (58%) patients. A rigid 8 F ureteroscope was used and the Ho:YAG laser energy delivered at 0.6-1.4 J and 6-10 Hz. All patients were evaluated after 3 months with intravenous urography to confirm stone clearance and to exclude ureteric stricture formation. RESULTS: The overall stone-free rate was 92% (24 children) after 28 ureteroscopic procedures. Stones were completely cleared in 83%, 80% and 100% of the procedures in the upper, mid- and lower ureters, respectively. In two children the procedure failed; they were salvaged by ureterolithotomy in one and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the other. During the procedures, a ureteric perforation was caused by several factors, including a technically difficult procedure and higher laser energy. At the mean (range) follow-up of 18 (3-39) months, low grade vesico-ureteric reflux was detected in two children, and there were no ureteric strictures in any. CONCLUSION: Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy is an efficient and safe treatment for ureteric calculi in children.     

Use of the holmium:YAG laser for ureterolithotripsy in children

OBJECTIVE: To review our experience with rigid ureteroscopy and holmium:YAG laser for treating ureteric calculi in children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 35 children who were treated with rigid ureteroscopy for ureteric calculi between November 1997 and June 2003 (15 boys and 20 girls; mean age 6.2 years, range 1-14). The mean (range) stone size was 8 (4-15) mm and the duration of anaesthesia 46.6 (15-90) min. The stone was in the distal third of the ureter in 33 children and in the proximal third in two. We used a 7.5/8/10 F rigid ureteroscopes with routine dilatation of the ureteric orifice. For lower ureteric stones, lithotripsy was carried out with holmium:YAG laser in 29 cases, a pneumatic impactor in two and forceps extraction in two. Both stones in the proximal ureter were pushed back into the collecting system. All the ureters were stented using JJ stents in 31 and ureteric catheters in four cases. The mean postoperative follow-up was 12 (2-30) months. RESULTS: Excluding the two stones pushed back, the stone-free rate after a one-stage procedure was 82% (27/33). With repeated procedures in the six (ESWL in two) remaining cases the success rate was 97% (32/33). The ureter was perforated in two patients within the first five in the series. There was no pyelonephritis or gross haematuria after surgery. CONCLUSION: Ureteroscopy and lithotripsy using the holmium:YAG laser is effective and safe for treating ureteric stones in children, in experienced hands. The results would be even better using smaller and flexible ureteroscopes.     

电磁式体外冲击波碎石的应用体会和输尿管镜碎石治疗输尿管结石的差别

目的比较电磁式体外冲击波碎石与输尿管镜碎石治疗输尿管结石的效果。方法选择我科室2015年7月至2017年10月就诊的150例输尿管结石患者,随机分为2组,体外冲击波组75例采用电磁式体外冲击波碎石术治疗,输尿管镜组75例采用输尿管镜碎石术治疗,对比两组临床疗效、结石大小、手术时间及并发症发生情况。结果体外冲击波组结石直径1 cm碎石成功率为95.24%,输尿管镜组结石直径1 cm为73.33%,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05),结石直径≥1 cm且2 cm和结石直径≥2 cm两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05),体外冲击波组总碎石成功率合计88.00%,输尿管镜组为72.00%,两组差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);体外冲击波组术后并发症发生率为9.33%,输尿管镜组为21.33%,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论电磁式体外冲击波碎石治疗对于1.0 cm的输尿管结石效果较好,且减少并发症发生。     

输尿管镜钬激光技术治疗输尿管结石合并息肉(附75例报告)

目的 探讨输尿管镜钬激光技术对输尿管结石合并息肉的治疗效果.方法 2007年9月～ 2012年4月,对75例输尿管结石合并息肉行输尿管镜钬激光治疗.结石位于输尿管上段18例,中段38例,下段19例;结石长径0.6 ～1.7 cm,平均1.1 cm.术中50例息肉未行任何处理,10例息肉仅限于结石表面烧灼,切除息肉15例并送病检.结果 69例一次碎石成功;3例结石上移至肾盂术后1周体外冲击波碎石治疗;2例输尿管上段扭曲折叠进镜失败改经皮肾镜术:1例术中输尿管穿孔出血改开放取石.手术时间20～ 95 min,平均43 min.术后住院时间2～10 d,平均5d.67例术后随访6～12个月,B超或静脉肾盂造影检查64例肾积水消失,输尿管通畅,未见明显结石残留,3例输尿管狭窄,均为术中处理息肉者.结论 输尿管镜钬激光技术治疗输尿管中下段结石合并息肉具有良好的疗效,不影响手术视野和碎石操作的息肉无需处理.     

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。     

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.     

输尿管镜下钬激光与气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石效果的比较（附1035例报告）

目的探讨输尿管镜下钬激光与气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石的疗效差异。方法回顾性分析2002年2月～2007年2月输尿管镜下钬激光与气压弹道碎石治疗1035例输尿管结石的临床资料。结果钬激光组一次性碎石成功率99.1%（328/331）,气压弹道碎石一次性成功率97.6%（687/704）,2组一次性碎石成功率无统计差异（χ2=2.703,P=0.100）;术后3周复查,钬激光与气压弹道碎石结石排净率分别为98.2%（322/328）、88.1%（605/687）（χ2=28.639,P=0.000）。钬激光组损耗输尿管镜11根,气压弹道组损耗6根,2组有统计学差异（χ2=8.509,P=0.004）。结论钬激光治疗输尿管结石排净率高于气压弹道碎石,但输尿管镜损耗多于气压弹道碎石。