west china medical publishers
Keyword
  • Title
  • Author
  • Keyword
  • Abstract
Advance search
Advance search

Search

find Keyword "体外冲击波碎石" 4 results
  • The Value of Ureteral Stent Placement before Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Meta-analysis

    Objective To evaluate the value of Ureteral Stent Placement before Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL). Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE (OVID 1950 to April 2010), EMbase (1979 to April 2010), CBM (1978 to April 2010), CNKI (1979 to April 2010), and VIP (1989 to April 2010), and manually searched journals as well. All the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treating ureteral stone with ESWL after stent placement were included. We evaluated the risk of the bias of the included RCTs according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 5.0 was used for meta-analysis. Results Three RCTs with C-level evidence involving 319 ureteral stone patients were identified. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) Effect of treatment: The ureteral stent placement before ESWL did not take better effects in aspects of the complete clearance rate (WMD= 1.10, 95%CI 0.87 to 1.38), the quantity of lithotripsy (WMD= 0.43, 95%CI – 1.05 to 0.19), the frequency of shock wave (WMD= 0.00, 95%CI – 0.25 to 0.25), and the power of shock wave (WMD= 0.20, 95%CI – 0.05 to 0.46); and b) Postoperative complications: The ureteral stent placement were prone to cause dysuria (RR= 2.30, 95%CI 1.62 to 3.26), microscopic hematuria (RR= 2.66, 95%CI 1.97 to 3.58), gross hematuria (RR= 6.50, 95%CI 1.50 to 28.15), pyuria (RR= 1.78, 95%CI 1.44 to 2.21), positive urine culture (RR= 2.13, 95%CI 1.71 to 2.64), and suprapubic pain (RR= 3.10, 95%CI 1.59 to 6.04). Conclusions Ureteral stent placement before ESWL is inadvisable. Multi-factors which lead to bias affected the authenticity of our review, such as low-quality and small amount of RCTs. Further large-scale trials are required.

    Release date:2016-09-07 11:09 Export PDF Favorites Scan
  • 小儿体外冲击波碎石的护理

    目的 总结小儿体外冲击波碎石围手术期护理方法。 方法 2009年3月-2011年6月对56例行体外冲击波碎石的泌尿结石患儿,术前完善各项筛查、抗感染工作,术后严密监测生命体征,予促石排泄指导,对相关并发症及时处置,并做好出院指导等护理工作。 结果 56例患儿均顺利完成体外冲击波碎石手术。其中1例排石效果不理想于次日行手术切开取石,1例术后14 d复查结石仍未排净行第2次排石术,其余54例患儿均一次性碎石成功。术后3个月门诊随访,56例均无结石形成。 结论 术前完善的检查及抗感染处置,术后排石的观察与指导,及并发症的预防护理是结石患儿体外碎石治愈成功的关键。

    Release date:2016-09-08 09:18 Export PDF Favorites Scan
  • 体外冲击波碎石联合枸橼酸氢钾钠颗粒治疗输尿管上段尿酸结石

    目的 探讨枸橼酸氢钾钠联合体外冲击波治疗输尿管上段尿酸结石的临床疗效。 方法 2007年1月-2009年5月收治输尿管尿酸结石患者89例, 枸橼酸氢钾钠联合体外冲击波碎石治疗输尿管上段尿酸结石48例,并与复方金钱草颗粒联合体外冲击波碎石治疗的患者41例进行对比。 结果 试验组排出结石41例,有效率85.4%,对照组排出结石24例,有效率58.5%;排出结石时间试验组(12±3)d,对照组(20±5)d。 结论 输尿管上段尿酸结石体外冲击波碎石治疗后口服友来特可以提高治愈率,并可以减少输尿管石街的形成。

    Release date:2016-09-08 09:49 Export PDF Favorites Scan
  • Use of ERCP combined with ESWL in the treatment of pancreatic duct stones

    Pancreatic duct stones are secondary to chronic pancreatitis while conventional medical treatment is always not effective. Due to the advantages of less trauma, simple operation, and fewer complications, since endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) combined with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) was first used in the treatment of pancreatic duct stones in 1987, the treatment method has been continuously improved for more than 30 years, and has experienced the development process from being questioned to becoming the first-line treatment for pancreatic duct stones in multinational guidelines nowadays. However, with the rapid development of science and technology today, the method of ERCP combined with extracorporeal lithotripsy is also facing the challenges of many other treatment methods.

    Release date: Export PDF Favorites Scan
1 pages Previous 1 Next

Format

Content