ダウンロード数: 592

このアイテムのファイル:
ファイル 記述 サイズフォーマット 
37_1121.pdf2.04 MBAdobe PDF見る/開く
タイトル: 尿管結石およびシスチン結石にたいするESWL
その他のタイトル: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones and cystine stones
著者: 山本, 啓介  KAKEN_name
加藤, 禎一  KAKEN_name
熊田, 憲彦  KAKEN_name
岸本, 武利  KAKEN_name
和田, 誠二  KAKEN_name
坂本, 亘  KAKEN_name
杉本, 俊門  KAKEN_name
飴野, 靖  KAKEN_name
大山, 哲  KAKEN_name
上水流, 雅人  KAKEN_name
前川, 正信  KAKEN_name
著者名の別形: Yamamoto, Keisuke
Katoh, Yoshikazu
Kumata, Norihiko
Kishimoto, Taketoshi
Wada, Seiji
Sakamoto, Wataru
Sugimoto, Toshikado
Ameno, Yasushi
Ohyama, Satoru
Kamizuru, Masato
Maekawa, Masanobu
キーワード: ESWL
Dornier HM3
Ureteral stones
Cystine stones
発行日: Oct-1991
出版者: 泌尿器科紀要刊行会
誌名: 泌尿器科紀要
巻: 37
号: 10
開始ページ: 1121
終了ページ: 1124
抄録: 1)尿管結石の長径1 cm以下の場合, 1~2 cmの非嵌頓の場合には無処置ESWL, それ以外の結石ではTUL等との併用を行うべきである.2)シスチン結石の破砕はやや困難であるが, 1回の衝撃波数を増やさず, 治療回数を増し, 経口投与による結石融解を併用したESWLが可能になる
We report our experience with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of ureteral and cystine stones, which are known to be difficult to treat by this method. First, in order to determine the effectiveness of the ureteral catheter in the destruction of ureteral stones, we compared the clinical results of 121 patients treated without the catheter and 141 patients inserted with the catheter. There was no significant difference in the success rate between the two groups regardless of stone size, which indicates that the use of the ureteral catheter had no effect on the outcome of treatment. We then studied the clinical results of impacted ureteral stones which are especially difficult to destroy. Excretory urography was performed to non-invasively diagnose these stones, and those without visualization in the ureter below the stone were diagnosed as impacted stones and treated by ESWL without the ureteral catheter. Among the stones with a diameter of 1 to 2 cm, the success rate was significantly lower in impacted stones compared to non-impacted stone. These findings suggest that ESWL treatment without the ureteral catheter may be effective for ureteral stones with a diameter of less than 1 cm and non-impacted stones with a diameter of 1 to 2 cm, while combination therapy with other methods such as TUL may be better for other stones. We also performed ESWL on 6 patients with renal stones and 2 patients with ureteral stones which were cystine stones. Renal stones required an average 4.1 treatment with an average of 1, 875 shocks per treatment, and ureteral stones required 1.5 treatment with an average of 1, 833 shocks.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2433/117339
PubMed ID: 1755402
出現コレクション:Vol.37 No.10

アイテムの詳細レコードを表示する

Export to RefWorks


出力フォーマット 


このリポジトリに保管されているアイテムはすべて著作権により保護されています。