腔内弹道碎石加ESWL联合治疗复杂上尿路结石的临床观察

目的：探讨输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石,体外冲击波碎石（ESWL）及经皮肾穿刺取石联合治疗复杂性上尿路结石的疗效。方法：自1998年8月－2000年12月分别采用输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石,ESWL及经皮肾穿刺取石联合治疗复杂性上尿路结石133例。结果：结石总排净率为90．2％（120／133）,其中肾铸形结石排净率为87．9％（29／33）,输尿管结石排净率为91．0％（91／100）,并发症主要为输尿管穿孔及顽固血尿,占3．7％,结论：采用此联合方法治疗复杂性上尿路结石的排净率高,损伤小,可有效地避免开放手术之痛苦。     

ESWL与腔内技术联合处理复杂性上尿路结石(附编者按)

目的　探讨复杂性上尿路结石的治疗方法。　方法　对近期 138例复杂性上尿路结石患者 ,采用体外冲击波碎石 (ESWL)与输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石 ,经皮肾微穿刺造瘘碎石、取石等腔内技术联合治疗。其中复杂性输尿管结石 110例 ,复杂性肾结石 2 8例 ,均有不同程度肾积水。对输尿管结石先行ESWL ,2 4h内再行输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石 ;对肾结石及输尿管镜碎石困难的输尿管上段结石 ,先一期行经皮肾微穿刺造瘘术 ,5～ 7d后行ESWL ,2 4h内再经肾造瘘通道行输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石、取石。　结果　结石总排净率为 97.1% (134/138) ,其中输尿管结石排净率为10 0 .0 % (110 /110 ) ,肾结石排净率为 85 .7% (2 4 /2 8)。无治疗失败病例。　结论　ESWL与腔内技术联合处理复杂性上尿路结石 ,降低了腔内手术难度 ,缩短了腔内操作时间 ,提高了结石排净率 ,患者创伤小 ,恢复快 ,并发症少 ,是治疗复杂性上尿路结石较理想的方法。     

体外冲击波碎石治疗尿路结石15467例临床分析

目的探讨腔镜时代体外冲击波碎石（ESWL）治疗尿路结石的价值。方法回顾性分析1988年8月至2012年12月15467例尿路结石患者行ESWI。治疗的临床资料,其中包括儿童尿路结石85例,移植肾结石46例,腔镜及手术后结石残留506例。治疗后3个月随访。结果经3个月随访,结石总排净率为86．7％。1次粉碎11708例,碎石率为75．7％;复治3759例,复治率24．3％。ESWL治疗后辅助措施333例（2．2％）。结论目前即使有先进的腔镜取石方法,ESWL仍然是治疗尿路结石最主要方法之一。     

输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石412例报告

目的：探讨输尿管镜（URS）气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石的临床疗效。方法：采用URS取石或配合气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石患者412例。结果：一次性碎石取石成功率为88．3％，其中输尿管上段结石为56．3％（18／32），输尿管中段结石为87．9％（80／91），输尿管下段结石为97．1％（266／274），并发症主要为术后发热（13例），肾绞痛（9例），及血尿等。结论：URS气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石安全有效，损伤小，是治疗输尿管中下段结石的好方法。     

钬激光碎石术治疗泌尿系结石(附1 216例报告)

目的探讨钬激光碎石术治疗泌尿系结石的疗效及其安全性。方法应用输尿管肾镜和膀胱镜联合钬激光碎石术治疗1216例泌尿系结石，其中输尿管结石1006例（上段302例，中段364例，下段340例），膀胱结石210例。结果l例输尿管上段结石因前列腺增生症致置镜困难改体外冲击波碎石（extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy,ESWL）治疗。l006例输尿管结石单次碎石成功率95．5％（961／1006）），其中上、中、下段结石单次碎石成功率分别为89．4％（270／302）、96．4％（351／364）和100％（340／340），术中发生6例输尿管穿孔。膀胱结石单次碎石成功率为100％（210／210），无出血和膀胱穿孔发生。881例输尿管结石术后随访0．5—40个月，平均18．6月，输尿管上、中、下段结石排净率分别为91．1％（224／246）、98.5％（318／323）、100％（312／312），总结石排净率为96．9％（854／881）；6例发生输尿管狭窄。187例膀胱结石术后随访0.5～31个月，平均12．4月，结石排净率98．4％（184／187）。结论钬激光碎石术治疗泌尿系结石疗高效、微创、安全，是输尿管结石和膀胱结石首选治疗方法。     

仰卧位经臀部体外冲击波碎石治疗输尿管下段结石的体会

目的：探讨仰卧位经臀部体外冲击波碎石治疗输尿管下段结石的效果。方法：2010年10月～2012年9月收治636例输尿管下段结石患者,接受仰卧位经臀部体外冲击波碎石治疗。结果：输尿管下段结石碎石率达100％;一次ESWI．结石排尽率593例（93．2％）;二次ESWI。结石排尽率40例（6．3％）,总排石率99．5％;二次ESWI,后有结石残留3例（0．5％）,进一步检查明确诊断并改其他手术治疗。无一例发生神经损伤。结论：仰卧位经臀部体外冲击波碎石治疗输尿管下段结石安全、有效,可避免肠道损伤．应是输尿管下段结石的首选体位。     

腔内镜联用配合气压弹道碎石治疗复杂性上尿路结石

目的：探讨提高复杂性上尿路结石疗效的方法。方法：对21例复杂性上尿路结石患者采用经皮肾镜、输尿管镜、输尿管电切镜两镜或三镜联合并配合气压弹道碎石机治疗。结果：21例复杂性上尿路结石均一期治疗成功，一期结石取净率为90．5％，3个月结石排净率为100%，无严重并发症发生。结论：腔内镜联用配合气压弹道碎石治疗复杂性上尿路结石具有安全、高效、损伤小、周期短等优点。     

输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石378例

目的探讨输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石的临床效果。方法采用Wolf F8/9.8硬性输尿管镜，瑞士产第二代EMS气压弹道碎石机，治疗378例输尿管结石。左侧213例，右侧158例，双侧7例。输尿管上段81侧，中段146侧，下段158侧。结果313例（320侧）单次碎石成功，输尿管上、中、下段结石碎石成功率分别为60．5％（49／81）、84．2％（123／146）、93．7％（148／158），1～8周内结石全部排净，结石排净率82．8％（313／378）。15例改开放手术。置镜失败3例。主要并发症有输尿管穿孔8例、发热13例。结论输尿管镜气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石安全、微创、效果确切，是治疗输尿管中、下段结石的首选方法。     

小功率钬激光经皮肾输尿管镜碎石术联合冲击波碎石治疗复杂性肾结石

目的探讨小功率钬激光经皮。肾输尿管镜碎石术联合体外冲击波碎石治疗复杂性肾结石的有效性和安全性。方法应用小功率（20W：0．6～0．8J×10-20Hz）钬激光经皮肾穿刺微造瘘输尿管镜配合体外冲击波治疗复杂性肾结石31例,分析小功率钬激光碎石术联合体外冲击波碎石的碎石时间、结石排净率、并发症等。结果平均碎石时间为85min（60—120min）,总的取净率为87．09％（27／31）;术中出血量估计平均为80ml．术后3例患者出现高热,无其他严重并发症。结论小功率钬激光经皮肾输尿管镜碎石术联合体外冲击波碎石治疗复杂性肾结石是一种安全、有效的方法。     

经皮肾穿气压弹道碎石联合体外冲击波碎石治疗上尿路结石

目的 探讨提高上尿路结石碎石成功率的微创治疗方法。方法 采用经皮肾穿微造瘘输尿管镜气压弹道碎石，术中放置双J管，术后配合体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗上尿路结石48例。结果 结石总排净率为89．1％，结石最小排净率79．2％，无严重并发症发生。结论 该方法结石排净率高，创伤较小，手术并发症少，是上尿路结石较为理想的微创治疗方法。     

尿流改道后输尿管结石的处理（附8例报告）

目的：评价尿流改道后输尿管结石的治疗方案。方法：回顾性分析8例尿流改道后输尿管结石的处理方法,术前泌尿系腹部平片、泌尿系彩超、肾输尿管膀胱CT平扫明确为输尿管结石,所有患者对症治疗,随访观察1周,患者如结石未自行排出,行体外冲击波碎石术（ESWL）或逆行输尿管镜钬激光碎石。结果：2例患者输尿管结石自行排出;3例患者行ESWL,1例碎石后结石成功排出;5例行逆行输尿管软镜碎石成功。8例患者结石治疗后均未出现并发症。结论：尿流改道后输尿管结石的处理包括短期随访观察、ESWL及逆行输尿管软镜碎石治疗。逆行输尿管软镜碎石是安全有效的,可作为尿流改道患者输尿管结石的理想治疗方法之一。     

ESWL治疗上尿路结石临床体会(附1847例报告)

目的 总结ESWL治疗上尿路结石的经验. 方法 2006年1月～2011年10月,采用国产HB-ESWL-VG型低能量碎石机治疗上尿路结石1 847例并随访. 结果 第一次治疗成功碎石排石1 445例,有效率为78.2％,第二次治疗成功碎石排石370例,有效率为20.0％,治疗三次以上或转为手术等其他治疗方法的32例(1.7％).术后两周复查1 847例,随访率100％.6周内结石排净率为98％(1 810/1 847).并发症:患者术后均出现肉眼血尿,均轻微,肾结石患者术后12 ～ 24h内消失,输尿管结石患者术后血尿12h内消失；输尿管绞痛25例(1.4％),经静脉补液、解痉、止痛后缓解；输尿管石街形成12例(0.6％),经再次ESWL石街消失. 结论 ESWL治疗上尿路结石疗效确切,损伤较小,是一种安全、有效的治疗方法,值得推广.     

钬激光结合输尿管镜治疗泌尿系结石

目的:探讨钬激光结合输尿管镜腔内治疗泌尿系结石的安全性、有效性。方法:采用钬激光联合输尿管镜治疗泌尿系结石380例。结果:单次手术结石粉碎率达90.8%(345/380),其中肾结石成功率为81.8%(54/66),输尿管上段结石单次碎石成功率为93.1%(284/305),中、下段结石为97.9%(91/93),膀胱结石及尿道结石为100%(9/9)。结论:钬激光联合输尿管镜碎石术治疗泌尿系结石安全、有效,手术技巧容易掌握;尤其适用于结石合并输尿管狭窄、结石合并息肉形成或结石嵌顿包裹,以及体外冲击波碎石失败的患者。     

上尿路结石的现代治疗方法的探讨(附5178例报告）

目的：探讨上尿路结石的现代治疗方法。方法：回顾性分析2001年2月8日～2002年12月31日收治的5178例上尿路结石患者的临床资料。结果：5178例中，采用体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗1826例，输尿管镜取石术(URL)2157例，微创经皮肾镜取石术(mini-PCNL)1131例，腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术8例和开放手术56例，分别占总数的35．3％、41．7％、21．8％、0．2％和1．0％。ESWL治疗中，1个月后结石排净率为83．0％，2个月后结石排净率为86．0％，3个月后为86．5％。术后有13例发生输尿管石街，采用URL或PCNL取净。URL对输尿管中、下段结石取净率为100％，上段为76％，术中无输尿管穿孔和撕脱并发症发生。mini—PCNL对肾盂和输尿管上段结石的取净率为100％，鹿角形结石为93％。术中未见肾盂大穿孔和。肾皮质撕裂。术后79例输血，输血率为1．5％。腹腔镜治疗8例全部成功，无并发症发生。结论：上尿路结石可用腔内技术和ESWL治疗，开放手术几乎可避免。     

三种不同术式治疗输尿管结石的Meta分析

目的:对体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)、输尿管镜碎石术(URS)、经皮肾镜碎石取石术(PCNL)治疗输尿管结石的有效性及安全性进行比较。方法:检索关于输尿管结石治疗的随机对照试验研究文献,数据库包括MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Library和中国生物医学文摘数据库(CBMDisc)等文摘数据库以及PUBMED、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)及维普中文期刊数据库(CQVIP)等全文数据库,按预设的标准筛选纳入研究,对文献质量进行严格评价和资料提取后,采用RevMan5.1软件进行Meta分析。结果:共有15个研究符合纳入标准。Meta分析显示:对于输尿管下段结石,URS组较ESWL组有较高的结石清除率及较低的重复治疗率(P0.01),而在术后并发症及手术时间方面无明显差异(P0.05);对于输尿管上段结石,ESWL组与URS组在结石清除率、术后并发症及重复治疗率方面均无显著差异(P0.05),ESWL组平均治疗时间较URS组短(P0.01);URS组与PCNL组治疗上段结石的对比分析显示PCNL组在结石清除率方面较URS组高(P0.01),两组在术后并发症、平均手术时间及重复治疗方面无明显差异(P0.05)。结论:对于输尿管下段结石的治疗,URS与ESWL相比有结石清除率高及较低的重复治疗率等优点,值得推荐;而对于输尿管上段结石的微创治疗方式的选择则需要进一步分析研究来指导临床实践。     

上尿路结石的手术方式选择(附2 528例临床报告)

目的分析上尿路结石的各种手术方式，探讨临床治疗中合理的术式选择。方法回顾性分析1997年2004年收治的2528例上尿路结行患者的临床分类、手术方式及并发症。结果单纯性肾结石和输尿管上段结石以ESWL治疗为主，3个月内结石排净率为86％。5％形成石街，9％经2—3次ESWL治疗无排石现象，转手术率14％；中、下段结石采用输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石治疗为主，结石排净率为92％。经皮肾穿肾镜取石，肾盂和输尿管上段结石的取净率为100％；鹿角形结石的取净率为95％；复杂性肾结右选择升放性手术取石或联合方式治疗为主，因肾脏无功能而行一侧肾切除7例（1．6％），下术后输尿管漏7例，切口经久不愈3例，肾脏大出血5例，无死亡病例。结论上尿路结石的微创手术可以避免开放于术对患者造成的痛苦，减少术后并发症，但也不能盲目采用，对于复杂性结石，开放手术仍有实际应用价值。     

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.     

Treatment of 2019 cases with upper urinary tract calculi using a piezoelectric lithotriptor ESL-500A

PURPOSE: We evaluated the results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in a large number of cases with upper urinary tract calculi, and reported the strategy how to improve the efficacy and safety of ESWL. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Eight hundred fifteen patients with renal calculi and 1,204 patients with ureteral calculi were treated using a piezoelectric ultrasound-guided lithotriptor, Toshiba ESL-500A. Auxiliary measures were needed in 51 cases (2.5%) and 1,968 cases (97.5%) were treated by in situ procedures. ESWL was performed with the optimal positioning of the patient and under the continuous monitoring by ultrasound system. The visibility of stones was improved by removal of abdominal gas and administration of diuretic agent to dilate the ureter. Cases with urinary tract infection were medicated by antibiotics and the obstruction of the urinary tract was cleared away as soon as possible. RESULTS: Including the cases with residual fragments less than 4 mm, the success rates at one month after the treatment were 97.7% and 98.7% for the renal and ureteral calculi, respectively. The mean numbers of sessions were 1.49 for renal calculi and 1.16 for ureteral calculi. Multiple sessions were required in 24.2% of renal calculi and 12.0% of ureteral calculi. No serious complication has been observed except for three cases, which were sepsis after ESWL, anuria in a solitary kidney, and pyonephrosis caused by Steinstrasse with urinary infection, respectively. CONCLUSION: ESWL using ESL-500A is an efficient treatment of upper urinary tract calculi which has higher pulverization rate and fewer complications in the adequate procedure.     

Efficacy of in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for upper ureteral calculi

In contrast to the majority of renal calculi, in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for upper ureteral stones is still controversial. Some centers recommend retrograde mobilization of the calculus into the renal pelvis prior to ESWL as a routine procedure (UC + ESWL). To evaluate the efficiency of in situ ESWL for upper ureteric stones, we initiated a prospective clinical trial. From July 1985 to January 1986, 122 patients presented with upper ureteral calculi, necessitating a total of 146 different procedures: 88 in situ ESWL; 31 UC + ESWL; 15 antegrade ureteroscopies (URS); 6 retrograde URS; 2 open surgery (ureterolithotomy, nephrectomy), and 4 patients were managed conservatively. Of all 99 patients treated at the lithotripter, 80 patients received in situ ESWL (no emergency case, no location problems): in 60 patients (75%) the stone could be disintegrated in one session; 8 patients (10%) required a second ESWL session due to partial fragmentation. Retrograde mobilization using a ureteral catheter or URS was necessary in 9 patients due to failure of in situ ESWL (11%) and, in only 3 patients, we had to remove the stone by antegrade URS (4%). In conclusion, 96% of all upper ureteric stones suitable for primary ESWL could be treated by a noninvasive (in situ ESWL) or minimally invasive (UC + ESWL) procedure. Therefore we recommend in situ ESWL for these calculi. Primary retrograde mobilization is only indicated in case of location problems (stone close to the spine, obesity, skeleton deformation) or emergency cases (colic, hydronephrosis). Antegrade URS should be performed if retrograde mobilization fails or in emergency cases (acute pyelonephritis, following percutaneous nephrostomy, after clinical stabilization). The rate of open surgery is below 2%.