输尿管气压弹道碎石术与微创经皮肾镜碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石的疗效比较  

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy Between Ureteral Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Lithotripsy in Treatment of Upper Ureteral Calculi

作　　者：莫仰骐 史向民 苏雁峰 徐晓龙 邹韵 

机构地区：[1]东莞市第三人民医院泌尿外科,广东东莞523320

出　　处：《锦州医科大学学报》2018年第1期31-32,46,共3页Journal of Jinzhou Medical University

摘　　要：目的比较输尿管气压弹道碎石术和微创经皮肾镜碎石术在输尿管上段结石治疗中的临床效果。方法将2014年10月至2015年8月期间在我院接受治疗的73例输尿管上段结石患者展开研究,使用双盲法将73例患者分为观察组(n=37)以及对照组(n=36);对照组行输尿管气压弹道碎石术(URL)治疗,观察组行微创经皮肾镜碎石术(MPCNL)治疗。结果经治疗,观察组在碎石成功率上优于对照组(P<0.05);手术时间及住院时间比较,对照组占优(P<0.05);并发症率比较无差异(P>0.05)。结论微创经皮肾镜碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石的整体效果优于输尿管气压弹道碎石术,临床中可将该方法作为首选治疗措施。Objective To compare the clinical effects of ureteral pneumatic lithotripsy and minimally invasive percutaneous litho- tripsy in treatment of upper ureteral calculi. Methods 73 cases with upper ureteral calculi treated in our hospital from October 2014 to August 2015 were selected and divided into observation group （n = 37） and control group （n = 36 ） by double blind method. Patients in the control group received ureteral pneumatic lithotripsy （URL） , while those in the observation group were given minimally invasive percutaneous lithotripsy （MPCNL）. Result After treatment, the success rate of lithotripsy in the observation group was better than that in the control group （ P〈0. 05 ）, the operation time and hospitalization time of the control group was shorter （ P〈0. 05 ） in the ob- servation group, and the rate of complications was not statistically significantly different （ P〉0.05 ）. Conclusion The overall effect of minimally invasive percutaneous lithotripsy in the treatment of upper uretera] calculi is better than ureteral pneumatic ]ithotripsy, which can be used as the first choice in clinical treatment.

关 键 词：输尿管上段结石 微创经皮肾镜碎石术 输尿管气压弹道碎石术 临床效果 

分 类 号：R693.4[医药卫生—泌尿科学]