论文部分内容阅读
目的比较输尿管镜下碎石术与传统碎石术治疗输尿管结石的临床效果。方法选取邛崃市医疗中心医院2014年12月—2016年10月收治的输尿管结石患者170例。根据不同手术方式分为镜下治疗组与传统治疗组,各85例。镜下治疗组予以输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术,传统治疗组予以开放式碎石术,比较两组患者临床疗效(住院时间、术中出血量、碎石时间、引流管拔除时间、碎石排净率)、并发症(术后感染、血尿、输尿管穿孔)发生情况及满意度。结果镜下治疗组患者住院时间、碎石时间、引流管拔除时间短于传统治疗组,术中出血量少于传统治疗组、排净率高于传统治疗组(P<0.05)。镜下治疗组并发症发生率低于传统治疗组,总满意度高于传统治疗组(P<0.05)。结论较传统碎石术,输尿管镜下碎石术治疗输尿管结石的临床疗效确切,且治疗时间短、术中出血量少、并发症少、患者满意度高。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of ureteroscopic lithotripsy and traditional lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral calculi. Methods 170 patients with ureteral calculi admitted from December 2014 to October 2016 in Qionglai Medical Center Hospital were enrolled. According to different surgical methods are divided into microscopic treatment group and traditional treatment group, each of 85 cases. The treatment group undergone ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy, the traditional treatment group was open lithotripsy, the clinical efficacy of the two groups were compared (length of stay, intraoperative bleeding, gravel time, drainage tube removal time, gravel Rejection rate), complications (postoperative infection, hematuria, ureter perforation) and satisfaction. Results The length of hospital stay, the time of lithotripsy, and the drainage of the drainage tube in the treatment group were shorter than those in the traditional treatment group. The bleeding volume in the treatment group was less than that in the traditional treatment group and the elimination rate was higher than that in the traditional treatment group (P <0.05). The incidence of complications in the microscopic treatment group was lower than that in the traditional treatment group, and the total satisfaction was higher than that in the traditional treatment group (P <0.05). Conclusion Compared with traditional lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy, the clinical curative effect of ureteral calculi is definite, and the treatment time is short, less blood loss during operation, less complications and high patient satisfaction.