经皮肾镜取石术与体外冲击波碎石术治疗下肾盏1 ~ 2 cm结石的疗效和安全性比较

Montadhar H Nimaa, Shahad A. Ibraheem
{"title":"经皮肾镜取石术与体外冲击波碎石术治疗下肾盏1 ~ 2 cm结石的疗效和安全性比较","authors":"Montadhar H Nimaa, Shahad A. Ibraheem","doi":"10.4172/2168-9857.1000209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To distinguish the ESWL and PCNL treatment procedures of 1-2 cm of lower calyceal renal calculi in order to assess the ability and safety of the procedures.Materials and Methods: Patients that undergone treatments within the time frame of June 2015 to March 2018 was selected for the study. 220 patients were identified, where; they were diagnosed with stone size ranging from 1-2 cm in lower calyceal. Selected patients were grouped into to Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) groups. The demographic information comprising age, gender, size of the stone, operation time and stone-free rate (SFR) was collected and analyzed. After the operation, identified patients were tested with stone detection procedure (KUB and US) and CT scan at day 10th and 12th week respectively.Result: It was observed that both groups were eligible for preoperative parameters comparison. The mean (SD) of operating time was significantly longer for Group B [6.71 (38) mins] compared to Group A, yet statistically significant as the p-value was <0.001. On the other hand, the SFR value obtained for both groups were different, 27% and 82% for Group A and Group B respectively.Conclusion: In summary, it was proven that both ESWL and PCNL treatment procedures are comparable for treating lower calyceal stones ranging from 1-2 cm. Despite having the longer hospital stay and intraoperative complications, PCNL was observed to have longer operating time compared to ESWL. Besides that, PCNL also possesses a higher tendency of post-operative infection as the SFR value obtained was higher than ESWL.","PeriodicalId":89536,"journal":{"name":"British journal of medical & surgical urology","volume":"25 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy vs Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Lower Calyceal Stones 1-2 cm\",\"authors\":\"Montadhar H Nimaa, Shahad A. Ibraheem\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/2168-9857.1000209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To distinguish the ESWL and PCNL treatment procedures of 1-2 cm of lower calyceal renal calculi in order to assess the ability and safety of the procedures.Materials and Methods: Patients that undergone treatments within the time frame of June 2015 to March 2018 was selected for the study. 220 patients were identified, where; they were diagnosed with stone size ranging from 1-2 cm in lower calyceal. Selected patients were grouped into to Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) groups. The demographic information comprising age, gender, size of the stone, operation time and stone-free rate (SFR) was collected and analyzed. After the operation, identified patients were tested with stone detection procedure (KUB and US) and CT scan at day 10th and 12th week respectively.Result: It was observed that both groups were eligible for preoperative parameters comparison. The mean (SD) of operating time was significantly longer for Group B [6.71 (38) mins] compared to Group A, yet statistically significant as the p-value was <0.001. On the other hand, the SFR value obtained for both groups were different, 27% and 82% for Group A and Group B respectively.Conclusion: In summary, it was proven that both ESWL and PCNL treatment procedures are comparable for treating lower calyceal stones ranging from 1-2 cm. Despite having the longer hospital stay and intraoperative complications, PCNL was observed to have longer operating time compared to ESWL. Besides that, PCNL also possesses a higher tendency of post-operative infection as the SFR value obtained was higher than ESWL.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of medical & surgical urology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"1-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of medical & surgical urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9857.1000209\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of medical & surgical urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9857.1000209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:区分ESWL和PCNL治疗1 ~ 2cm下盏肾结石的术式,评价两种术式的能力和安全性。材料与方法:选取2015年6月至2018年3月期间接受治疗的患者作为研究对象。确定了220例患者,其中;他们被诊断为下盏结石大小为1-2厘米。选择的患者分为体外冲击波碎石(ESWL)组和经皮肾镜取石(PCNL)组。收集并分析患者的年龄、性别、结石大小、手术时间、结石清除率(SFR)等人口统计学信息。术后患者分别于第10天和第12周行肾结石检查(KUB和US)和CT扫描。结果:两组术前参数比较均符合要求。B组平均手术时间(SD)明显长于A组(6.71 (38)min), p值<0.001,差异有统计学意义。另一方面,两组的SFR值不同,A组为27%,B组为82%。结论:综上所述,ESWL和PCNL治疗1-2 cm的下盏结石具有可比性。尽管PCNL有较长的住院时间和术中并发症,但与ESWL相比,PCNL的手术时间更长。此外,PCNL术后感染的倾向也较高,因为获得的SFR值高于ESWL。
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
Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy vs Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Lower Calyceal Stones 1-2 cm
Purpose: To distinguish the ESWL and PCNL treatment procedures of 1-2 cm of lower calyceal renal calculi in order to assess the ability and safety of the procedures.Materials and Methods: Patients that undergone treatments within the time frame of June 2015 to March 2018 was selected for the study. 220 patients were identified, where; they were diagnosed with stone size ranging from 1-2 cm in lower calyceal. Selected patients were grouped into to Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) groups. The demographic information comprising age, gender, size of the stone, operation time and stone-free rate (SFR) was collected and analyzed. After the operation, identified patients were tested with stone detection procedure (KUB and US) and CT scan at day 10th and 12th week respectively.Result: It was observed that both groups were eligible for preoperative parameters comparison. The mean (SD) of operating time was significantly longer for Group B [6.71 (38) mins] compared to Group A, yet statistically significant as the p-value was <0.001. On the other hand, the SFR value obtained for both groups were different, 27% and 82% for Group A and Group B respectively.Conclusion: In summary, it was proven that both ESWL and PCNL treatment procedures are comparable for treating lower calyceal stones ranging from 1-2 cm. Despite having the longer hospital stay and intraoperative complications, PCNL was observed to have longer operating time compared to ESWL. Besides that, PCNL also possesses a higher tendency of post-operative infection as the SFR value obtained was higher than ESWL.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An Introduction to Pelvic Surgery The Condition: Pneumaturia Laparoscopy and Its Procedure Struvite and Triple Phosphate Renal Calculi Cancer in Prostate Gland and Prostatitis
×
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