体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗急性肾绞痛的相对疗效与观察比较

C. Lovegrove
{"title":"体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗急性肾绞痛的相对疗效与观察比较","authors":"C. Lovegrove","doi":"10.37707/jnds.v2i4.201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Miss Catherine Lovegrove1,2Mandy Spencer1Prof Ben Turney1,2Ms Naomi Neal1 \n1 Department of Urology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK2 University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK \n  \nBackground NICE guidance recommends patients with renal colic be offered surgical treatment, including extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), within 48 hours if pain is uncontrolled or stones unlikely to pass. We compared outcomes for ureteric stone passage after ESWL with those of observation to ascertain the relative benefits of ESWL. \nMethods We collected data on stone location, size and number of ESWL treatments required prospectively over 18 months. Stone passage was confirmed radiologically. Data were compared with MIMIC, a multi-centre collaborative study examining spontaneous stone passage after observation alone. \nResults 166 patients had ESWL for ureteric stones. Median size was 6.5mm (IQR 5.0-8.0mm). 57.2% (N=95) were proximal stones. Smaller stones required fewer treatments (P=0.003). Patients with a ureteric stone <5mm required median 1.0 ESWL treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0). Ureteric stones 5-7mm had median 1.0 treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0) and stones >7mm median 2.0 treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0). Compared to MIMIC, patients with ESWL for stones <5mm were 11% more likely to achieve stone clearance (100.0% vs 89.0%, P=0.001). ESWL for 5-7mm stones had 28.1% greater clearance compared to observation (77.1% vs. 49.0%, P<0.001) and ESWL for stones >7mm 21% greater likelihood of clearance (50.0% vs. 29.0%, P<0.001). Proximal ureteric stones were 16.4% more likely to pass with ESWL than observation (68.4% vs 52%, P=0.02). Distal stones showed similar passage with ESWL (77.5%) and observation (83.0%), P=0.43. \nConclusions Proximal ureteric stones and those >5mm stones benefit most from ESWL. Results aid identification of patients whose stones are less likely to pass and warrant urgent review to consider ESWL.","PeriodicalId":184356,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Relative benefits of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) compared to observation in acute renal colic\",\"authors\":\"C. Lovegrove\",\"doi\":\"10.37707/jnds.v2i4.201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Miss Catherine Lovegrove1,2Mandy Spencer1Prof Ben Turney1,2Ms Naomi Neal1 \\n1 Department of Urology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK2 University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK \\n  \\nBackground NICE guidance recommends patients with renal colic be offered surgical treatment, including extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), within 48 hours if pain is uncontrolled or stones unlikely to pass. We compared outcomes for ureteric stone passage after ESWL with those of observation to ascertain the relative benefits of ESWL. \\nMethods We collected data on stone location, size and number of ESWL treatments required prospectively over 18 months. Stone passage was confirmed radiologically. Data were compared with MIMIC, a multi-centre collaborative study examining spontaneous stone passage after observation alone. \\nResults 166 patients had ESWL for ureteric stones. Median size was 6.5mm (IQR 5.0-8.0mm). 57.2% (N=95) were proximal stones. Smaller stones required fewer treatments (P=0.003). Patients with a ureteric stone <5mm required median 1.0 ESWL treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0). Ureteric stones 5-7mm had median 1.0 treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0) and stones >7mm median 2.0 treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0). Compared to MIMIC, patients with ESWL for stones <5mm were 11% more likely to achieve stone clearance (100.0% vs 89.0%, P=0.001). ESWL for 5-7mm stones had 28.1% greater clearance compared to observation (77.1% vs. 49.0%, P<0.001) and ESWL for stones >7mm 21% greater likelihood of clearance (50.0% vs. 29.0%, P<0.001). Proximal ureteric stones were 16.4% more likely to pass with ESWL than observation (68.4% vs 52%, P=0.02). Distal stones showed similar passage with ESWL (77.5%) and observation (83.0%), P=0.43. \\nConclusions Proximal ureteric stones and those >5mm stones benefit most from ESWL. Results aid identification of patients whose stones are less likely to pass and warrant urgent review to consider ESWL.\",\"PeriodicalId\":184356,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37707/jnds.v2i4.201\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37707/jnds.v2i4.201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Catherine Lovegrove1, mandy spencer1, Ben教授1,Naomi Neal1,英国牛津郡牛津大学医院NHS信托泌尿科2,英国牛津郡牛津大学纳菲尔德外科科学部,英国牛津郡牛津大学背景NICE指南建议肾绞痛患者在48小时内进行手术治疗,包括体外冲击波碎石(ESWL),如果疼痛无法控制或结石不可能排出。我们比较了体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)和观察输尿管结石通过的结果,以确定体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)的相对益处。方法收集结石的位置、大小和ESWL治疗的次数,预计超过18个月。放射学证实结石通道。数据与MIMIC进行比较,MIMIC是一项多中心合作研究,在单独观察后检查自发性结石通道。结果体外冲击波碎石治疗输尿管结石166例。中位尺寸为6.5mm (IQR 5.0-8.0mm)。57.2% (N=95)为近端结石。较小的结石需要较少的治疗(P=0.003)。输尿管结石7mm患者中位治疗2.0 (IQR 1.0-2.0)。与MIMIC相比,7mm结石的ESWL患者清除率提高21% (50.0% vs 29.0%), P5mm结石从ESWL中获益最多。结果有助于识别结石不太可能通过的患者,需要紧急复查以考虑ESWL。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Relative benefits of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) compared to observation in acute renal colic
Miss Catherine Lovegrove1,2Mandy Spencer1Prof Ben Turney1,2Ms Naomi Neal1 1 Department of Urology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK2 University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK   Background NICE guidance recommends patients with renal colic be offered surgical treatment, including extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), within 48 hours if pain is uncontrolled or stones unlikely to pass. We compared outcomes for ureteric stone passage after ESWL with those of observation to ascertain the relative benefits of ESWL. Methods We collected data on stone location, size and number of ESWL treatments required prospectively over 18 months. Stone passage was confirmed radiologically. Data were compared with MIMIC, a multi-centre collaborative study examining spontaneous stone passage after observation alone. Results 166 patients had ESWL for ureteric stones. Median size was 6.5mm (IQR 5.0-8.0mm). 57.2% (N=95) were proximal stones. Smaller stones required fewer treatments (P=0.003). Patients with a ureteric stone <5mm required median 1.0 ESWL treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0). Ureteric stones 5-7mm had median 1.0 treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0) and stones >7mm median 2.0 treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0). Compared to MIMIC, patients with ESWL for stones <5mm were 11% more likely to achieve stone clearance (100.0% vs 89.0%, P=0.001). ESWL for 5-7mm stones had 28.1% greater clearance compared to observation (77.1% vs. 49.0%, P<0.001) and ESWL for stones >7mm 21% greater likelihood of clearance (50.0% vs. 29.0%, P<0.001). Proximal ureteric stones were 16.4% more likely to pass with ESWL than observation (68.4% vs 52%, P=0.02). Distal stones showed similar passage with ESWL (77.5%) and observation (83.0%), P=0.43. Conclusions Proximal ureteric stones and those >5mm stones benefit most from ESWL. Results aid identification of patients whose stones are less likely to pass and warrant urgent review to consider ESWL.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信