期刊文献+

肾下盏肾盂夹角对冲击波碎石治疗肾下盏结石效果的影响 被引量:7

Impact of Infundibulopelvic Angle on Therapeutic Effect of Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Lower Pole Calices
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的 探讨肾下盏肾盂夹角对SWL治疗肾下盏结石效果的影响。 方法  1998年 1月~ 2 0 0 4年 1月采用冲击波碎石治疗肾下盏结石 2 6 3例 ,选择单发结石直径在 0 .5cm~ 1.5cm之间、肾下盏长度 <3cm以及盏颈宽度≥ 5mm的 4 2例作为研究对象 ,其中肾下盏肾盂夹角≥ 90°者 2 7例 ,肾下盏肾盂夹角 <90°者 15例。 结果  3个月后复查 ,4 2例患者总结石排净率为 76 % ,肾下盏肾盂夹角≥ 90°的结石排净率为 85 .2 % ,肾下盏肾盂夹角 <90°的结石排净率为 4 6 .7% ,两组比较有统计学差异(P <0 .0 5 )。 结论 肾下盏肾盏夹角对SWL治疗肾下盏结石的疗效有影响 ,肾下盏肾盂夹角≥ 90°者明显优于肾下盏肾盂夹角 <90°者。 Objective To investigate the impact of infun di bulopelvic angle on therapeutic effect of shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole calices. Methods Between January 1998 and January 2004, 263 adults with lower pole renal stone were treated by SWL. According to the IVP findings, the lower pole infundibular length and width, infundibulopelvic angle of the stone bearing calix were measured. 42 patients with a solitary stone wit h diametre ranged from 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm, infundibular length less than 3 cm, and width greater than 5 mm were screened out. Among the 42 cases, there were 27 ca ses with 90° infundibulopelvic angle or greater, and 15 cases with less than 90 ° respectively. Results The overall stone clearance rat e was 76% 3 months later after SWL. Patients with infundibulopelvic angle of 90 ° or greater had a stone clearance rate of 85.2%, while those with angle less t han 90° had a stone clearance rate of only 46.7%. There was statistically signi ficant difference between the two groups (P<0.05). Conclusions Infundibulopelvic angle of 90° or greater is found to corre late wi th an improved stone clearance rate after SWL for kidney calculi of lower pole c alices.
出处 《中国现代手术学杂志》 2004年第5期279-281,共3页 Chinese Journal of Modern Operative Surgery
关键词 治疗 肾盂 肾下盏结石 冲击波碎石 影响 效果 肾盏 患者 夹角 复查 kidney calculi lithotripsy kidney c alices kidney pelvis
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

  • 1Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH. Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy[J]. J Urol, 1992, 147(2):322-324.
  • 2Sabnis RB, Naik K, Patel SH, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower calyceal stones: can clearance be predicted?[J]. Br J Urol, 1997, 80(6):853-857.
  • 3Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoening DM, et al. Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy[J]. J Urol, 1998, 159(3):676-682.
  • 4Madbouly K, Sheir KZ, Elsobky E. Impact of lower pole renal anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy: fact or fiction?[J]. J Urol, 2001, 165(5):1415-1418.
  • 5Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, et al. Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results[J]. J Urol, 2001,166(6):2072-2080.
  • 6Sorensen CM, Chandhoke PS. Is lower pole caliceal anatomy predictive of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success for primary lower pole kidney stones?[J]. J Urol, 2002, 168(6):2377-2382.

同被引文献52

引证文献7

二级引证文献41

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部