钬激光与气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管上段结石的对比研究  

Holmium:YAG Laser Lithotripsy Versus Pneumatic lithotripsy for Upper Ureteral Calculi

作　　者：杨泽松[1] 叶烈夫[1] 庄惠强[1] 谢泽铨[1] 崔旭[1] 

机构地区：[1]福建医科大学附属福建省立医院泌尿外科,福州350001

出　　处：《临床泌尿外科杂志》2010年第1期16-18,共3页Journal of Clinical Urology

摘　　要：目的:比较钬激光碎石术和气压弹道碎石术处理输尿管上段结石的疗效及安全性。方法:应用输尿管镜下钬激光及气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石共135例,其中钬激光碎石治疗51例,气压弹道碎石治疗84例,进行疗效、安全性等方面的比较。结果:钬激光碎石组和气压弹道碎石组的结石一次粉碎率分别为90.2%和76.2%(P<0.05),平均手术时间前者(49.43 min)较后者短(59.24 min)(P<0.05)。钬激光组出现输尿管穿孔1例,气压弹道组出现穿孔6例。结论:治疗输尿管上段结石钬激光较气压弹道碎石具有一定的优势,是一种安全有效的碎石方法。Objective：To compare the efficacy and safety of Holmium： YAG laser lithotripsy versus pneumatic lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteral calculi. Methods： 135 patients with upper ureteral calculi underwent ureteroscope lithotripsy with Holmium： YAG laser lithotripsy（51 cases） or with pneumatic lithotripsy（84 cases）, parameters regarding safety and efficiency were compared between two groups. Results： The single session overall successful rate of calculi fragmentation of Hol laser and pneumatic lithotripsy were 90. 2% and 76.2% （P〈0.05）, the average operation time of Hol laser group was shorter than pneumatic lithotripsy group（49.43 min vs. 59.24 rain, P〈0. 05）, 1 ureteral perforation occurred in Hol laser group whereas 6 in pneumatic lithotripsy group. Conclusions： Holmium： YAG laser lithotripsy has some advantage in treatment of upper ureteral calculi when compare to pneumatic lithotripsy, which is a safe and effective method.

关 键 词：输尿管结石 钬激光碎石 气压弹道碎石 

分 类 号：R693[医药卫生—泌尿科学]