Clinical experience of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for cystine calculi

Thirty patients (16 men and 14 women) with cystine urinary stones were treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (Dormer HM-3) from December 1984 through October 1989. The average patient age was 35.2 years with a range of 14 to 59 years. Seventy per cent of these subjects had had previous open surgical operations for stones. The cases consisted of 7 ureteral stones and 37 renal stones, including 15 staghorn calculi. An average of 1.3 session of ESWL was carried out to treat ureteral stones. Thirty-seven renal units with renal stone required 96 sessions of lithotripsy (average 2.6 sessions per unit). Seven patients with ureteral stones required auxiliary procedures, i.e., one transurethral lithotripsy (TUL), two percutaneous nephrostomies (PNS) and one open surgery. Thirty-seven renal stones, including staghorn calculi was treated by ESWL and auxiliary treatment of 21 TUL procedures, one PNS, 16 PNL procedures and one chemical chemolysis. Successful fragmentation (residual debris less than or equal to 4 mm) was achieved in 85.7% of ureteral stones, 90.9% of renal stones and 73.3% of staghorn calculi. The stone free rates of patients with ureteral stones, renal stones and staghorn calculi were 71.4%, 50.0% and 53.5%, respectively, at 3 months after ESWL. No serious complications were seen in this series. Fever above 38.5 degrees C was the most common complications (13.5%). Ureteral perforation was encountered once in TUL procedures. Transfusion and selective arterial embolization were needed for one case treated by PNL procedures. Although cystine stone is harder to be fragmented by ESWL than other stone composition, ESWL and endourology may be effective and safe procedures for cystine stone patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

慢速与快速ESWL治疗尿路结石的疗效比较

目的:比较不同ESWL速率对上尿路结石碎石效果的影响。方法:对150例上尿路结石患者行ES-WL治疗,分慢速组(60震波/min)73例、快速组(120震波/min)77例,对结石的排净率和总震波冲击数等指标进行统计学分析。结果:与快速组比较,慢速组震波总数显著减低(P<0.05),治疗时间延长(P<0.01);在多变量分析中,只有慢速震波和结石大小差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论:慢速ESWL能增加结石的排净率、降低总震波冲击数。     

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%.     

Two years clinical experiences with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and transurethral ureterolithotripsy for ureteral stones at Osaka City University Hospital

From July 1985 to June 1987, 303 patients with ureteral stones were treated by either extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or transurethral ureterolithotripsy (TUL). The ureteral stones were classified into two groups, upper and lower ureteral stones. The upper ureteral stone was defined as a stone located above the pelvic brim in radiological examinations. ESWL was performed using a Dornier lithotriptor HM-3. For TUL, following the insertion of a guide wire and dilatation of the intramural ureter by ureteral bougie, a ureteroscope was introduced into the ureter. The success rate included both patients who became stone free and patients whose stones were disintegrated into less than 4 mm. The success rate of ESWL for upper ureteral stones was 90%, and 8.5% were treated subsequently by TUL. The success rate of TUL for upper ureteral stones was 42%, and the remaining required another session of TUL or another procedure, mainly ESWL. On the other hand, the success rate of TUL for lower ureteral stones was 71%, and the remainder also required another session of TUL or another procedure, mainly ESWL. The efficacy of TUL for stone street was comparably low by the evaluation done at 5 days after the procedure. However, almost all patients with stone street, which had developed after ESWL treatment, became stone free several weeks after TUL and insertion of a stent catheter. Major complications or side effects for ESWL were fever of more than 37.5 degrees C (7.5%) and pain attacks (8.9%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

ESWL治疗尿路结石1380例报告

报告应用国产NSJ-15型水囊式碎石机治疗尿路结石1380例,其中肾结石535例,输尿管结石744例,肾伴输尿管结石90例,膀胱及后尿道结石12例。碎石率为99.06％,三个月结石排净率肾结石为92.84％,输尿管结石为92.43％。并对71例结石进行红外光谱分析以探讨结石成分与碎石效果的关系;对85例病人碎石前后尿液NAG酶测定以了解冲击波对肾脏损害情况。主张输尿管结石尽量采用原位治疗。     

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.     

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%.     

Efficacy of expulsive therapy using nifedipine or tamsulosin,both associated with ketoprofene,after shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is currently considered one of the main treatments for ureteral stones. Some studies have reported the effectiveness of pharmacologic therapies (calcium antagonists or alpha-blockers) in facilitating ureteral stone expulsion after ESWL. We prospectively evaluated the efficacy, after ESWL, of nifedipine on upper-middle ureteral stones, and tamsulosin on lower ureteral stones, both associated to ketoprofene as anti-edema agent. From January 2003 to March 2005 we prospectively evaluated 113 patients affected by radiopaque or radiolucent ureteral stones. Average stone size was 10.16 ± 2.00 mm (range 6–14 mm). Thirty-seven stones were located in the upper ureter, 27 in the middle ureter, and 49 in the lower ureter. All patients received a single session of ESWL (mean number of shock waves: 3,500) by means of a Dornier Lithotripter S (mean energy power for each treatment: 84%). Both ultrasound and X-ray were used for stone scanning. After treatment, 63 of 113 patients were submitted to medical therapy to aid stone expulsion: nifedipine 30 mg/day for 14 days administered to 35 patients with upper-middle ureteral stones (group A1) and tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day for 14 days administered to 28 patients with stones located in the distal ureter (group A2). The remaining 50 patients were used as a control group (29 upper–middle ureteral stones—B1—and 21 lower ureteral stones—B2—), receiving only pain-relieving therapy. No significant difference in stone size between the groups defined was observed. Stone clearance was assessed 1 and 2 months after ESWL by means of KUB, ultrasound scan and/or excretory urography. A stone-free condition was defined as complete stone clearance or the presence of residual fragments smaller than 3 mm in diameter. The stone-free rates in the expulsive medical therapy group were 85.7 and 82.1% for the nifedipine (A1) and tamsulosin (A2) groups respectively; stone-free rates in the control groups were 51.7 and 57.1% (B1 and B2, respectively). Five patients (14.3%) in group A1, 5 (17.8%) in group A2, 14 (48.3%) in group B1 and 9 (42.8%) in group B2 were not stone-free after a single ESWL session and required ESWL re-treatment or an endoscopic treatment. Medical therapy following ESWL to facilitate ureteral stone expulsion results in increased 1- and 2-month stone-free rates and in a lower percentage of those needing re-treatment. The efficacy of nifedipine for the upper-mid ureteral tract associated with ketoprofene makes expulsive medical therapy suitable for improving overall outcomes of ESWL treatment for ureteral stones.     

Do upper ureteral stones need to be manipulated (push back) into the kidneys before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy?

The current practice for the management of upper ureteral stones is to push the stone back into the renal pelvis before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL*). The results in 903 patients with an upper third ureteral stone pushed back before ESWL were compared to those of 815 with an upper third ureteral stone treated by ESWL in situ with a ureteral stent bypassing the stone. The stone size in the in situ group was larger than in the push back group. More shocks at a higher kilovoltage were required to treat the in situ group. The retreatment rate and post-ESWL secondary procedure rate for the push back group with single stones were 4% and 1.5%, respectively, compared to 5% and 7.5%, respectively, for the in situ group. The stone-free rate with single stones at 3 months was 73% in the push back group and 79% in the in situ group. There appears to be little advantage in manipulating a ureteral stone into the kidney (push back) before treatment by ESWL.     

Anesthesia-free in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones

Stones in the proximal, mid and distal ureter in 375 consecutive patients were treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in a technically unmodified Dornier HM3 lithotriptor without regional or general anesthesia. Adequate followup was available in 162 patients with proximal, 62 with mid and 146 with distal ureteral stones. The fraction of patients with stone-free ureters within 3 months after ESWL was 96, 97 and 97%, respectively. Of all patients only 13 (3.6%) had residual stones or fragments in the ureter after 3 months. The average number of ESWL sessions was 1.34 for all patients, and 1.36, 1.45 and 1.38 for those with proximal, mid and distal ureteral stones, respectively. A ureteral catheter with saline irrigation was used whenever it was possible to insert a ureteral catheter. Only 15 stones were pushed up to the kidney during catheterization and all other stones were treated in situ. There were more retreatments in patients in whom the stone had not been bypassed by a catheter at the initial ESWL session. During at least 1 treatment session 238 patients had a ureteral catheter with the tip above the stone. Approximately half of all patients were treated after only premedication with pethidine and diazepam, and cutaneous half of all patients were treated after only premedication with pethidine and diazepam, and cutaneous anesthesia with an anesthetic cream containing lidocaine-prilocaine (for proximal and mid ureteral stones). Small supplements of pethidine and diazepam were given to the other patients during the ESWL session. In situ ESWL of ureteral stones as described is a convenient, efficient and attractive procedure that, applied in a consequent manner, theoretically might result in a successful outcome in up to 98% of the patients.     

体外冲击波碎石、逆行输尿管镜或微创经皮输尿管镜碎石治输尿管上段结石的疗效比较

目的 总结输尿管上段结石的有效治疗方法. 方法回顾性分析体外冲击波碎石(ESwL)、逆行输尿管镜(URL)或微创经皮输尿管镜碎石(MPCNL)治疗397例输尿管上段结石患者的临床效果,统计学比较3种治疗方法的成功率及结石清除率.结果 397例患者中,ESWL治疗83例,结石横径0.8～1.5 cm,平均1.23 cm;改行URL或开放手术治疗13例(15.7%);单纯ESWL治疗术后1个月结石清除率为65.7%(46/70).URL治疗213例,结石横径0.7～1.8 cm,平均1.21cm;改行开放手术18例(8.5%);单纯URL治疗术后1个月结石清除率为88.2%(172/195).MPCNL治疗101例,结石横径0.9～2.5 cm,平均1.50 cm;改行开放手术治疗3例(3.0%);单纯MPCNL治疗术后1个月结石清除率为96.9%(95/98).结石横径≤1 cm者.ESWL治疗结石清除率低于URL和MPCNL治疗组(P=0.041),URL组与MPCNL组结石清除率比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.680);结石横径＞1 cm者,ESWL治疗结石清除率低于URL组和MPCNL组(P＜0.001),URL组结石清除率低于MPCNL组(P=0.005).结论 横径≤1 cm的输尿管上段结石首选ESWL治疗,＞1 cm的结石应选用URL或MPCNL治疗,MPCNL治疗的结石清除率更高.     

Utility of ureteral stent for stone street after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

We reviewed the records of the 530 patients with urinary stones (renal stones: 243; ureter stones 287) who received extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (MFL5000; Dornier), from January 1995 to July 2002, retrospectively and determined whether the ureteral stent affected the incidence rate of stone street (SS). We also assessed the effect of ureteral stent on the subsequent management for SS. Forty patients (7.5%) developed SS. Twenty patients were inserted a ureteral stent prior to ESWL (stent group), and 20 patients were performed ESWL without a ureteral stent (in situ group). In the stent group, the most common (80.0%) location for SS was in the upper third ureter, while in the in situ group, SS mostly developed in the distal third ureter (60.0%). The incidence of SS did not differ significantly between the two groups when the size of renal and ureter stones was below 30 and 20 mm, respectively. When the renal stones were larger than above 30 mm, the incidence of SS in the stent group was significantly higher than that in the in situ group. SS disappeared spontaneously with stone passage in 10 of the patients in in situ group, but in only 1 patient in the stent group. In the stent group, 15 patients were treated for SS by removal of ureteral stent regardless of stone diameter. We conclude that ESWL should be performed without a ureteral stent when the stone diameter is below 20 mm. When the ureteral stent is thought to interfere with the delivery of stone fragments, the decision to remove it should be made as soon as possible.     

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of distal ureteral stones larger than 10 mm in diameter

Optimal treatment for distal ureteral stones remains controversial. During a period of 10 years, from December 1992 to December 2002, 103 distal ureteral stones larger than 10 mm in diameter were treated at our institution with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) using the Siemens Lithostar. Only 2 patients had a ureteral stent in place at the time of treatment. The overall stone-free rate was 98% with 1-12 session and 3-month stone-free rate was 95.1%. These data reveal that a high success rate was achieved in multisession ESWL. Therefore, ESWL is considered to be acceptable as first-line therapy for fragmentation of distal ureteral stones larger than 10 mm in diameter.     

In situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones with acute renal colic.

In situ (no instrumentation) extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL*) was used to treat 49 patients with obstructing ureteral stones causing acute renal colic. Ureteral obstruction was diagnosed on the delayed films of an excretory urogram and was classified as severe (dilatation above and no contrast medium seen below the stone) in 17 patients and partial (dilatation above and contrast medium seen below the stone) in 32. Upper third ureteral stones were present in 41 patients (obstruction severe in 15 and partial in 26) and lower third ureteral stones were present in 8 (obstruction severe in 2 and partial in 6). ESWL was performed within 14 days of the onset of the acute renal colic because of persistent pain with an unmodified Dornier HM3 lithotriptor in 17 patients and a Medstone STS device in 32. With single stones the stone-free rate at 3 months, the repeat ESWL rate and the secondary procedure (stone basketing) rate were 92%, 6% and 8%, respectively, with severe obstruction, and 78%, 6% and 6%, respectively, with partial obstruction. No urinary drainage procedures for sepsis were required after ESWL. Obstructing ureteral stones, which presented mainly in the upper third of the ureter, were successfully treated with in situ ESWL without the need for either bypassing the stone with a ureteral stent or for pushing the stone back into the kidney before treatment with ESWL.     

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy with Lithostar lithotriptor.

Initial experience of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) using the Lithostar lithotriptor is reported; 193 patients underwent 248 treatments for 210 stones. A total of 139 renal calculi (126 patients) and 71 ureteral stones (67 patients) were analyzed. Treatments were performed without anesthesia in 65 calculi (27.6%), with intravenous sedation in 91 (42.5%), and under epidural anesthesia in 34 calculi (29.9%). A three-month follow-up showed a success rate of 88.0 percent for renal calculi and 95.5 percent for ureteral calculi treated in situ. Renal stone fragmentation was achieved with a mean of 4,890 shocks at 17.4 kV and ureteral calculi were fragmented with a mean number of 4,798 shocks at a mean of 18.3 kV. Auxiliary procedures after ESWL were required in 2 patients with renal stones and in 1 with ureteral calculi. A comparison between stone size and number of shock waves required to achieve stone fragmentation revealed a linear relationship. Hospitalization was not necessary in 84.4 percent of renal calculi and 89.6 percent of ureteral calculi. Retreatments were necessary in 22 (15.8%) of the renal calculi (18 had 2 sessions, 3 had 3 sessions, and 1 had 4 sessions). Of the ureteral calculi, 8 (11.3%) underwent retreatment (6 had 2 sessions, 1 had 3 sessions, and 1 had 4 sessions). The low morbidity with a large number of patients treated on an outpatient basis, minimizing the need for anesthesia, demonstrated a favorable initial successful experience with the Lithostar.     

Dormia支架在ESWL中的选择性应用

目的 探讨防止体外冲击波碎石（ＥＳＷＬ）治疗巨大肾结石后发生石街的方法。方法 采用ＥＳＷＬ结合预置Ｄｏｒｍｉａ支架的方法治疗巨大肾结石１５例,结果 全部患者术后均未发生嵌顿性石街,大部分结石粉末可通过拔除支架一同带出或沿支架自行排出,结论：Ｄｏｒｍｉａ支架作为巨大肾结石ＥＳＷＬ的辅助治疗工有有效地防止术后石街形成,促进碎石排出,但应注意掌握其适用范围和留置时限。     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with EDAP LT-01 lithotriptor

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) by EDAP LT-01 was used to treat 77 patients with upper urinary tract stones. A total of 218 sessions were performed for 111 stones in 52 kidney units and 41 stones in 37 upper ureter units, and 77% of the 52 kidney stone units and 62% of the 37 ureter units were completely disintegrated. The success of fragmentation of kidney stones differed with the size of the stone, 96% of the stones less than 21 mm and 63% of the 8 stones between 21 and 30 mm were successfully fragmented. The success of fragmentation of ureteral stones differed auxiliary manipulation. Eighty-one percent of the 21 ureteral stones moved into the kidney, were successfully disintegrated, but 40% of the 20 stones unmoved could be disintegrated with retrograde manipulation. Of the 62 successful units, 89% became stone free within 3 months. Complications were subcapsular renal hematoma in 3 patients and obstruction in 5 patients. The initial 25 patients were treated under epidural anesthesia and 52 patients were treated without anesthesia. The results show that the indication of ESWL with LT-01 is better for the stones smaller than 30 mm and the indication should be determined after a couple of sessions for stones greater than 30 mm. ESWL with LT-01 can be performed on an out-patient basis without anesthesia in many cases.     

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.     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of proximal and distal ureteral stones

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) was used for treatment of 105 patients with ureteral stones. There were 77 stones in the upper part of the ureter, i.e. above the pelvic brim, and 28 in the lower part, i.e. below the sacroiliac joint. Successful fragmentation was attained in 101 (96%). In 93% of the patients with stones in the upper ureter and in 100% with stones in the lower ureter the fragments were eliminated completely. In 87% of the patients with stones in the upper ureter, a ureteral catheter was introduced under local anesthesia but without fluoroscopic control. It was thereby possible to remove 30% of the stones from the ureter to the kidney. For the remaining stones, saline was infused through the catheter during ESWL. For patients with stones in the lower part of the ureter, a ureteral catheter was passed in 79% and saline infused during treatment. Whereas some form of anesthesia was used for treatment of all upper ureteral stones, 89% of the treatments for lower ureteral stones were performed without anesthesia. Auxiliary procedures after ESWL were limited to four ureteral catheter manipulations for distal stones. Four proximal stones which remained unaffected by ESWL had to be treated by open surgery (3 stones) or percutaneous surgery (1 stone). Of 82 ureteric stones treated in situ the success fragmentation rate was 95%. The average number of ESWL sessions was 1.04 for both proximal and distal ureteral stones.     

输尿管结石的现代治疗(附569例报告)

目的 :报告应用现代微创技术治疗输尿管结石的经验。方法 :2 0 0 1年 1月～ 2 0 0 2年 6月间 ,应用体外冲击波碎石 (ESWL)、输尿管镜腔内碎石 [包括气压弹道腔内碎石 (PL)和钬激光腔内碎石 (HLL) ]、腹腔镜输尿管切开取石 (LUL)和开放手术 (OS)治疗各种类型输尿管结石 5 6 9例 ,并随访其疗效及并发症的发生率。结果 :ESWL 36 8例 ,结石粉碎率为 96 .2 % ,3个月后结石清除率为 87.6 % ;HLL 110例 ,10 6例结石一次性粉碎(96 .4 % ) ;PL 4例结石均一次粉碎排出 ;2 1例行LUL患者 ,手术均获成功 ;6 6例行OS的患者均为结石体积较大(>1.8cm)或双侧结石伴有肾功能不全者。结论 :ESWL和HLL可作为输尿管结石的首选治疗方法。LUL和OS可作为首选疗法失败后的补救方法或用于少数结石体积较大的病例