局灶应用能量商在冲击波治疗输尿管结石中的价值。

Urological Research Pub Date : 2012-08-01 Epub Date: 2011-10-15 DOI:10.1007/s00240-011-0430-6
Miguel Angel Arrabal-Polo, Miguel Arrabal-Martin, Francisco Palao-Yago, Jose Luis Mijan-Ortiz, Armando Zuluaga-Gomez
{"title":"局灶应用能量商在冲击波治疗输尿管结石中的价值。","authors":"Miguel Angel Arrabal-Polo,&nbsp;Miguel Arrabal-Martin,&nbsp;Francisco Palao-Yago,&nbsp;Jose Luis Mijan-Ortiz,&nbsp;Armando Zuluaga-Gomez","doi":"10.1007/s00240-011-0430-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The treatment of ureteral lithiasis by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is progressively being abandoned owing to advances in endoscopic lithotripsy. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the causes as to why ESWL is less effective-with a measurable parameter: focal applied energy quotient (FAEQ) that allows us to apply an improvement project in ESWL results for ureteral lithiasis. A prospective observational cohort study with 3-year follow-up and enrollment period was done with three groups of cases. In Group A, 83 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by endoscopic lithotripsy using Holmiun:YAG laser. In Group B, 81 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by ESWL using Doli-S device (EMSE 220F-XXP). In Group C, 65 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by ESWL using Doli-S device (EMSE 220F-XXP) (FAEQ >10). Statistical study and calculation of RR, NNT, Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Student's t test were done. Efficiency quotient (EQ) and focal applied energy quotient [FAEQ = (radioscopy seconds/number of shock waves) × ESWL session J] were analyzed. From the results, the success rate of the treatment using Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy and ESWL is found to be 94 and 48%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Success rate of endoscopic laser lithotripsy for lumbar ureteral stones was 82% versus 57% of ESWL (p = 0.611). In Group B, FAEQ was 8.12. In Group C, success rate was 93.84% with FAEQ of 10.64%. When we compare results from endoscopic lithotripsy with Holmium:YAG laser in Group B with results from ESWL with FAEQ >10, we do not observe absolute benefit choosing one or the other. In conclusion, the application of ESWL with FAEQ >10, that is, improving radiologic focalization of the calculus and increasing the number of Joules/SW, makes possible a treatment as safe and equally efficient as Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in ureteral lithiasis less than 13 mm.</p>","PeriodicalId":23412,"journal":{"name":"Urological Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00240-011-0430-6","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Value of focal applied energy quotient in treatment of ureteral lithiasis with shock waves.\",\"authors\":\"Miguel Angel Arrabal-Polo,&nbsp;Miguel Arrabal-Martin,&nbsp;Francisco Palao-Yago,&nbsp;Jose Luis Mijan-Ortiz,&nbsp;Armando Zuluaga-Gomez\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00240-011-0430-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The treatment of ureteral lithiasis by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is progressively being abandoned owing to advances in endoscopic lithotripsy. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the causes as to why ESWL is less effective-with a measurable parameter: focal applied energy quotient (FAEQ) that allows us to apply an improvement project in ESWL results for ureteral lithiasis. A prospective observational cohort study with 3-year follow-up and enrollment period was done with three groups of cases. In Group A, 83 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by endoscopic lithotripsy using Holmiun:YAG laser. In Group B, 81 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by ESWL using Doli-S device (EMSE 220F-XXP). In Group C, 65 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by ESWL using Doli-S device (EMSE 220F-XXP) (FAEQ >10). Statistical study and calculation of RR, NNT, Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Student's t test were done. Efficiency quotient (EQ) and focal applied energy quotient [FAEQ = (radioscopy seconds/number of shock waves) × ESWL session J] were analyzed. From the results, the success rate of the treatment using Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy and ESWL is found to be 94 and 48%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Success rate of endoscopic laser lithotripsy for lumbar ureteral stones was 82% versus 57% of ESWL (p = 0.611). In Group B, FAEQ was 8.12. In Group C, success rate was 93.84% with FAEQ of 10.64%. When we compare results from endoscopic lithotripsy with Holmium:YAG laser in Group B with results from ESWL with FAEQ >10, we do not observe absolute benefit choosing one or the other. In conclusion, the application of ESWL with FAEQ >10, that is, improving radiologic focalization of the calculus and increasing the number of Joules/SW, makes possible a treatment as safe and equally efficient as Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in ureteral lithiasis less than 13 mm.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23412,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urological Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00240-011-0430-6\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urological Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0430-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2011/10/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0430-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2011/10/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

由于内窥镜碎石术的进步,体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗输尿管结石的方法正逐渐被放弃。本文的目的是分析ESWL效果较差的原因,用一个可测量的参数:焦点应用能量商(FAEQ),使我们能够应用一个改善输尿管结石的ESWL结果的项目。对三组病例进行为期3年的随访和入组期的前瞻性观察队列研究。A组采用Holmiun:YAG激光内镜碎石术治疗输尿管结石83例。B组81例输尿管结石采用Doli-S装置(EMSE 220F-XXP)进行体外冲击波碎石治疗。C组65例输尿管结石采用Doli-S装置(EMSE 220F-XXP)进行ESWL治疗(FAEQ >10)。进行了RR、NNT、卡方检验、Fisher精确检验和Student t检验的统计研究和计算。分析了效率商(EQ)和焦点应用能量商[FAEQ =(放射镜秒数/冲击波数)× ESWL时段J]。从结果来看,钬激光碎石和ESWL治疗成功率分别为94%和48%,差异有统计学意义(p < 0.001)。内镜下激光碎石治疗输尿管结石的成功率为82%,ESWL为57% (p = 0.611)。B组FAEQ为8.12。C组成功率为93.84%,FAEQ为10.64%。当我们比较B组钬激光内镜碎石的结果和FAEQ >10的ESWL结果时,我们没有观察到选择哪一种方法有绝对的好处。综上所述,应用FAEQ >10的ESWL,即提高结石的放射学聚焦和增加焦耳/SW数,可以在小于13 mm的输尿管结石中实现与钬激光碎石一样安全有效的治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Value of focal applied energy quotient in treatment of ureteral lithiasis with shock waves.

The treatment of ureteral lithiasis by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is progressively being abandoned owing to advances in endoscopic lithotripsy. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the causes as to why ESWL is less effective-with a measurable parameter: focal applied energy quotient (FAEQ) that allows us to apply an improvement project in ESWL results for ureteral lithiasis. A prospective observational cohort study with 3-year follow-up and enrollment period was done with three groups of cases. In Group A, 83 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by endoscopic lithotripsy using Holmiun:YAG laser. In Group B, 81 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by ESWL using Doli-S device (EMSE 220F-XXP). In Group C, 65 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by ESWL using Doli-S device (EMSE 220F-XXP) (FAEQ >10). Statistical study and calculation of RR, NNT, Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Student's t test were done. Efficiency quotient (EQ) and focal applied energy quotient [FAEQ = (radioscopy seconds/number of shock waves) × ESWL session J] were analyzed. From the results, the success rate of the treatment using Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy and ESWL is found to be 94 and 48%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Success rate of endoscopic laser lithotripsy for lumbar ureteral stones was 82% versus 57% of ESWL (p = 0.611). In Group B, FAEQ was 8.12. In Group C, success rate was 93.84% with FAEQ of 10.64%. When we compare results from endoscopic lithotripsy with Holmium:YAG laser in Group B with results from ESWL with FAEQ >10, we do not observe absolute benefit choosing one or the other. In conclusion, the application of ESWL with FAEQ >10, that is, improving radiologic focalization of the calculus and increasing the number of Joules/SW, makes possible a treatment as safe and equally efficient as Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in ureteral lithiasis less than 13 mm.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urological Research
Urological Research 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊最新文献
A simple and rapid colorimetric method for determination of phytate in urine. Hyperoxaluric rats do not exhibit alterations in renal expression patterns of Slc26a1 (SAT1) mRNA or protein. Studies on the in vitro and in vivo antiurolithic activity of Holarrhena antidysenterica. Ureteroscopy-assisted retrograde nephrostomy (UARN) for an incomplete double ureter. Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1