经尿道输尿管镜下超声碎石与气压弹道碎石的比较

Comparison Between Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Ultrasonic Lithotripsy with Transurethral Ureteroscope

目的：评价经尿道输尿管镜下超声碎石与气压弹道碎石的疗效。方法：回顾性分析我院2005年3月至2009年11月间经尿道输尿管镜下超声碎石（108例）与气压弹道碎石（226例）的临床资料,比较2种碎石方法在结石清净率、手术碎石时间、并发症等指标的差异。结果：超声碎石组在结石清净率、手术碎石时间等方面明显优于气压弹道组（P〈0.01）。但在术后1~3月结石排净率和并发症方面无显著性差异（P〉0.05）。结论：经尿道输尿管镜下超声碎石治疗输尿管结石在结石清净率上明显优于气压弹道组,手术时间上也明显短于气压弹道组。但由于气压弹道碎石无热效应,不易损坏碎石探针而增加手术成本,价格适宜,现仍在广泛使用。

Objective：To evaluate the efficacy of pneumatic lithotripsy and ultrasonic lithotripsy with transurethral ureteroscope.Methods：Analysed 108 cases of ultrasonic lithotripsy with transurethral ureteroscope and 226 cases of pneumatic lithotripsy retrospective in our hospital from March 2005 to November 2009 and compared the differences between the two methods in the rate of taking calculus out,surgery time,complications and so on.Results：The ultrasound group was much better than pneumatic group in the rate of taking calculus and surgery time.There was significant statistical difference（P0.01）.However there was no statistical difference between the two groups in the rate of calculus discharging and complications 1 to 3 months after operation（P0.05）.Conclusion：To treat urethral calculus ultrasonic lithotripsy with transurethral ureteroscope are better than pneumatic lithotripsy in the rate of taking calculus out and surgery time.However,ultrasonic lithotripsy will produce thermal effects,ultrasonic probe is easy to be damaged to increase operation cost.But Pneumatic lithotripsy is still used by most hospitals because of non-thermal,non-fragile probe and lower surgical cost.