|
|
|
| Comparison of curative effect between two kinds of posture extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treating upper ureteral calculi |
| SONG Lichao1, ZHANG Zhongjun2, ZHANG Hanlin2, MA Ben2, WANG Jinzhen2, JIN Changzhu1 |
1 Department of Human Anatomy,School of Basic Medical,Binzhou Medical University,Yantai 264003,P.R.China;
2 Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Muping |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in treating upper ureteral calculi length diameter ≥1.0 cm in upper ureteral calculi by comparing ipsilateral prone position and prone supine position, exploring effective posture for treating upper ureteral calculi by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).Methods 30 cases of upper ureteral calculi were collected and randomly divided into ipsilateral prone group and ipsilateral oblique supine group followed by 2 weeks.VAS scores within 24 hours after lithotripsy were statistically significant.Stone drainage rate after 2 days was observed,after 1 week and 2 weeks stone discharge rate after lithotripsy and postoperative complications occurred after lithotripsy.The effectiveness and safety of ESWL therapy for upper ureteral calculi were analyzed compared with those of two postures.Results There were no significant differences between two groups, including sex,age,weight stone,side stone,shock times and stone length diameter.VAS scores of pain within 24 hours after lithotripsy were observed within 24 hours after lithotripsy and there was no significant difference between postoperative 2 days postoperatively.However,there was significant difference between the two groups in stone clearance rate after 1 week and 2 weeks. There was statistical significance between two groups in the incidence of post-lithotripsy hematuria.Conclusion ESWL treatment of upper ureteral calculi with long diameter ≥1.0 cm is less than ipsilateral prone position after ipsilateral oblique supine position and long term stone drainage rate is higher than ipsilateral prone position. It is an effective and safe therapeutic posture.
|
|
Received: 25 January 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] Neisius A,Preminger G M.Stones in 2012:epidemiology, prevention and redefining therapeutic standards[J] .Nat Rev Urol,2013,10(2):75-77.
[2] Hemal A K,Goel A,Goel R.Minimally invasive retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy[J] .J Urol,2003,169(2):480-482.
[3] 杨寿佐. 泌尿系结石治疗新进展[J] .临床合理用药杂志,2011,4(8):130-131.
[4] 高万露,汪小海.患者疼痛评分法的术前选择及术后疼痛评估的效果分析[J] .实用医学杂志,2013,29(23):3892.
[5] 马锦成.体外冲击波碎石治疗肾结石并输尿管上段结石的效果观察[J] .临床合理用药,2014,7(1B):80-81.
[6] 张京成,谢小岚,史立芬, 等. 超声定位体外冲击波碎石治疗输尿管下段结石的临床研究[J] .浙江创伤外科,2014,19(2):330-331.
[7] 汤忠木.2种微创方法治疗输尿管上段结石的临床疗效比较[J] .中华全科医学,2014,12(5):728-729.
[8] 周四维.输尿管上段结石的微创外科治疗[J] .中华泌尿外科杂志,2006,27 (6):365-367.
[9] 许建喜.不同体位体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石疗效比较[J] .山西医药杂志,2008,37(8):750-751.
[10] 张东方,夏昕辉,王固新.B 超定位体外冲击波碎石中的体位选择[J] .临床泌尿外科杂志,2003,18(12):747-748.
[11] Goktas S,Peskircioglu L,Tahmaz L,et al.Is there significance of the choice of prone versus supine position in the treatment of proximal ureter stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy?[J] .Eur Urol,2000,38(3):618-620.
[12] 桂西青,郑克立,詹鸣,等.体外冲击波碎石术治疗老年人输尿管上段结石的体位选择[J] .中国综合临床,2003,19(9):836-837.
[13] 李红蕾,刘继新,钱佳琦,等.体外冲击波碎石治疗输尿管结石并发症原因分析及防治策略[J] .河北医学,2015,21(11):1883-1885. |
|
|
|
