首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Reviews in Urology >Selecting Treatment for Distal Ureteral Calculi: Shock Wave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopy
【2h】

Selecting Treatment for Distal Ureteral Calculi: Shock Wave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopy

机译:输尿管远端结石的选择治疗:冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜检查

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) are both effective treatments for removal of distal ureteral calculi, associated with high success rates and limited morbidity. The American Urological Association Ureteral Stones Clinical Guidelines Panel has found both to be acceptable treatment options for patients, based on the stone-free results, morbidity, and retreatment rates for each respective therapy. However, costs and patient satisfaction or preference were not addressed, and the report was based on data derived from older endoscopic and lithotripsy technology. Each of these treatment options has valid advantages and disadvantages. Both modalities are reasonable treatment options for the majority of patients with distal ureteral calculi. Whereas SWL is less invasive, the high, immediate success rate with minimal morbidity and decreased cost makes URS a very valid competitor. The results of treating patients with larger stones favor URS.
机译:冲击波碎石术(SWL)和输尿管镜检查(URS)都是去除远端输尿管结石的有效方法,成功率高且发病率低。基于每种结石的无结石结果,发病率和再治疗率,美国泌尿外科协会输尿管结石临床指南小组发现这两种方法都是患者可接受的治疗选择。但是,费用和患者满意度或偏爱均未得到解决,该报告基于较旧的内窥镜和碎石术技术得出的数据。这些处理选项中的每一个都有有效的优点和缺点。对于大多数输尿管远端结石患者,这两种方式都是合理的治疗选择。尽管SWL的侵入性较小,但较高的即时成功率,最低的发病率和降低的成本使URS成为非常有效的竞争对手。治疗结石较大的患者的结果有利于URS。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号