气压弹道碎石术与钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石的临床比较  

Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Holmium Laser Lithotripsy in Treating Ureteral Calculi

作　　者：孟仲龙[1] 郭志远[1] 卢国汉[1] 姚汝贺[1] 李健辉[1] 柴晓霞[1] 

机构地区：[1]新容奇医院泌尿外科,广东顺德528305

出　　处：《中国医药指南》2013年第16期45-46,共2页Guide of China Medicine

摘　　要：目的探讨气压弹道碎石术与钬激光碎石术在输尿管结石治疗中的临床应用差异。方法选择本院2011年11月至213年2月收治的输尿管结石患者200例,随机分为2组,各100例,分别接受输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石术和钬激光碎石术治疗。结果 B组患者在手术时间和住院时间方面均显著低于A组(P<0.05),两组一次性碎石成功率分别为74.0%和90.0%(P<0.05),结石排净率分别为88.0%和97.0%(P<0.05),并发症率分别为5.0%和3.0%(P>0.05)。结论两种输尿管结石的微创碎石术各具特色,其中钬激光碎石术碎石效果更佳,效率高,应该根据具体的情况合理选择。Objective To comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and holmium laser lithotripsy in treating ureteral calculi. Methods 200 patients with ureteral calculi of our hospital from November 2011 to February 2013 were divided into 2 groups and each for 100, and were treated with ureteroscopy pneumatic lithotripsy and holmium laser lithotripsy respectively. Results Operation time and hospitalization time of group B were lower than group A（P〈0.05）, the disposable gravel success rate of two groups were 74.0% and 90.0%（P〈0.05）, the stones drained rate were 88.0% and 97.0%（P〈0.05）, and the complication rate of two groups were 5.0% and 3.0%（P〉0.05）. Conclusion Two minimally invasive ureteral calculi lithotripsy have their own different characteristics, and holmium laser lithotripsy in treating ureteral calculi has the virtue of better effect and higher efficiency, the reasonable choice should be based on the specific situation.

关 键 词：输尿管结石 输尿管镜 气压弹道 钬激光 

分 类 号：R693.4[医药卫生—泌尿科学]