首页> 外文期刊>Urology Annals >Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus shock wave lithotripsy for high-density moderate-sized renal stones: A prospective randomized study
【24h】

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus shock wave lithotripsy for high-density moderate-sized renal stones: A prospective randomized study

机译:经皮肾镜取石术与冲击波碎石术治疗高密度中型肾结石的前瞻性随机研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Context: The management of renal stones of high density (1000 Hounsfield units) on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT), and moderate sized (15-25 mm) is still debatable. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the high-density and moderate-sized renal stones regarding the stone-free rate (SFR), morbidity, and patients' quality of life. Settings and Design: This is a prospective randomized study. Patients and Methods: Eighty consecutive patients with renal stones, excluding those with lower calyceal stones, were randomized to receive either PCNL or SWL (40 in each arm). Patients were followed up by abdominal ultrasound and plain X-ray (NCCT if indicated) till clearance of stone. Outcomes, complications, costs, and SF-8 Health Survey scoring were recorded for each group. Statistical Analysis: We used Stata software, version 9.2 (Intercooled STATA?; StataCorp LP College Station, Texas, USA). Comparison of the two groups was made with regard to patient and stone criteria and the procedure details. Continuous variables were compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test with values shown as the median and interquartile range. Categorical variables were compared using the Pearson's Chi-square/Fisher's exact test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables independently associated with the stone clearance after two sessions of SWL. P 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The basic characteristics of both groups were comparable. After a single treatment session, the SFR was 80% and 27.5% for PCNL and SWL, respectively (P 0.001). The overall 3-month SFR was 87.5% versus 90%, respectively (P = 0.723). The median number of the required maneuvers was 1 (range: 1–3) for PCNL versus 2 (range: 1–4) for SWL (P 0.001). The complication rate was 10% and 7.5%, respectively (P = 0.692). The cost of SWL was significantly lower (P 0.001). On multivariate analysis, a single stone was an independent predictor for stone clearance after two sessions of SWL (odds ratio: 7.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.13–46.62, P = 0.037). Conclusions: PCNL for the dense, and moderate-sized renal stone provides higher initial success and lower re-treatment rates compared with SWL with comparable outcome after 3 months of therapy. However, SWL is an alternative, especially for a single stone.
机译:背景:采用非对比计算机断层扫描(NCCT)和中等大小(15-25 mm)的高密度(> 1000 Hounsfield单位)肾结石的治疗仍值得商bat。目的:本研究的目的是比较高密度和中型肾结石的经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)和冲击波碎石术(SWL)的结石发生率,发生率和患者的结局' 生活质量。设置和设计:这是一项前瞻性随机研究。患者与方法:将80例连续的肾结石患者(不包括下肾盂结石的患者)随机接受PCNL或SWL治疗(每组40例)。对患者进行腹部超声检查和X线平片检查(如果需要,应行NCCT检查)直至结石清除。记录每组的结果,并发症,费用和SF-8健康调查评分。统计分析:我们使用了版本9.2的Stata软件(中冷的STATA ?;美国得克萨斯州的StataCorp LP College Station)。在患者和结石标准以及手术细节方面对两组进行了比较。使用Mann-Whitney U检验比较连续变量,其值显示为中位数和四分位数范围。分类变量使用皮尔逊卡方检验/费舍尔精确检验进行比较。在两次SWL疗程后,使用多元逻辑回归分析来确定独立于结石清除的变量。 P <0.05被认为具有统计学意义。结果:两组的基本特征具有可比性。单次治疗后,PCNL和SWL的SFR分别为80%和27.5%(P <0.001)。整个3个月的SFR分别为87.5%和90%(P = 0.723)。 PCNL所需操作的中位数为1(范围:1-3),而SWL则为2(范围:1-4)(P <0.001)。并发症发生率分别为10%和7.5%(P = 0.692)。 SWL的成本显着降低(P <0.001)。在多变量分析中,单颗结石是两次SWL后结石清除率的独立预测因素(赔率:7.26,95%置信区间:1.13–46.62,P = 0.037)。结论:与SWL相比,治疗3个月后的PCNL与致密,中等大小的肾结石具有更高的初始成功率和更低的再治疗率。但是,SWL是替代方法,尤其是对于单块石头。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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