论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨点触式探针与平面探针超声碎石清石的效率和安全性,以及点触式探针的优越性。方法:将66例尿路结石患者随机分成2组,观察组32例,对照组34例。两组分别用点触式超声探针和平面超声探针行经皮肾镜和经尿道超声碎石清石术。对坚硬大结石,先用气压弹道将结石碎成小块,再用超声探针碎石清石。术中准确记录碎石时间,并观察两种探针对尿路黏膜损伤情况。术后测量每例结石的体积,并计算各探针的碎石速度。结果:平面探针对坚硬结石击碎困难,6例需要先用气压弹道将结石碎成小块后,再行超声碎石清石。点触式探针对坚硬结石仍可击碎,其碎石清石速度明显高于平面探针(P<0.05),是原超声探针的1.94倍。对照组出现多例轻微的黏膜吸附伤,无需处理,观察组未出现尿路黏膜吸附伤和刺伤。结论:点触式探针比平面探针碎石清石速度快,可以不借助于气压弹道辅助碎石,碎石清石效率高,安全性好,值得推广应用。
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficiency and safety of touch-point and plane-probe ultrasonication of gravel, and the advantages of the touch probe. Methods: Sixty-six patients with urolithiasis were randomly divided into two groups: observation group (32 cases) and control group (34 cases). Two groups were respectively treated with touch-point ultrasound probe and plane ultrasound probe for percutaneous nephrolithotomy and transurethral ultrasonography lithotripsy. On the hard stones, the first pressure ballistic stones will be broken into small pieces, and then ultrasound probe gravel. Accurately recorded lithotripsy time, and observe the two kinds of probe on the urinary tract mucosal injury. The volume of each stone was measured postoperatively, and the lithotripsy velocity of each probe was calculated. Results: Flat probe hard crushing hard stones, 6 cases need to use pneumatic lithotripsy stones will be broken into small pieces, and then ultrasound lithotripsy. The touch probe can still crush hard stones, and the gravel stone velocity is significantly higher than that of the plane probe (P <0.05), which is 1.94 times that of the original ultrasonic probe. In the control group, there were many cases of mild mucosal injury, no need to deal with, the observation group did not appear urinary tract mucosal injury and injury. Conclusion: The touch probe is faster than the flat probe lithotripsy, which can assist the gravel without the aid of the pneumatic ballistic trajectory. The lithotripsy stone is of high efficiency and good safety, which is worth popularizing and applying.