两种不同碎石方式治疗输尿管结石术后导致输尿管狭窄的对照分析  

Retrospective Analysis of Ureteral Stricture Incidence between Ureteroscopic Holmium Laser and Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy

作　　者：张广峰[1] 余子强[1] 邹建安[1] 

机构地区：[1]安徽中医药大学第一附属医院泌尿外科,安徽 合肥

出　　处：《外科（汉斯）》2021年第3期33-36,共4页Hans Journal of Surgery

摘　　要：目的:比较钬激光碎石和气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石继发输尿管狭窄的发生率。方法:回顾性分析自2014年3月~2020年3月治疗输尿管结石279例患者的临床资料和术后随访资料,包括141例钬激光碎石治疗的患者和138例气压弹道碎石治疗的患者。结果:两种方式碎石成功率、手术时间和3个月结石排净率无差异;两组的输尿管狭窄发生率组间差异存在统计学意义。结论:输尿管镜钬激光碎石术是一种治疗输尿管结石安全、高效的方法,但该术式导致的输尿管狭窄发生率比气压弹道碎石术高。Objective: To compare the incidence rate of ureteral stricture between ureteroscopic holmium laser and ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy for the treatment of ureteral calculi. Methods: Clinical data of 279 patients with ureteral calculi who underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy was analyzed retrospectively from March 2014 to March 2020, including 141 cases of holmium laser lithotripsy and 138 cases of pneumatic lithotripsy. Results: There is no significant difference in operation time, success rate of operation, the passing stone rate in 3 months. The difference of ureteral stricture between the two groups was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusions: Ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy is a safe and effective method for the treatment of ureteral calculi, but the incidence of ureteral stricture is higher than that of pneumatic lithotripsy.

关 键 词：输尿管结石 输尿管镜 钬激光 气压弹道 

分 类 号：R69[医药卫生—泌尿科学]