메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
김형호 (광주기독병원) 노준화 (광주기독병원)
저널정보
대한비뇨기과학회 Investigative and Clinical Urology Investigative and Clinical Urology Vol.46 No.11
발행연도
2005.1
수록면
1,141 - 1,146 (6page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Purpose: To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy(ESWL) and ureteroscopic removal of stone(URS) on the basis of success rate, cost effectiveness, safeness, cause of failure, complication, and auxiliary procedures in treating ureteral stones larger than 1cm. Materials and Methods: From January 2001 to April 2005, 72 cases were treated with URS using 7.5Fr or 9.5Fr rigid ureteroscopy and 110 cases with in situ Direx Compact ESWL. The mean stone sizes of URS and ESWL were 12.8mm and 13.1mm, respectively, and all were larger than 10.0 mm. Results: In the URS, the overall success rate and the mean operative time were 88.9%(64/72 cases) and 68 minutes, respectively. According to stone site, the success rates of upper, mid and lower ureteral stones were 83.3% (15/18 cases), 84.6%(11/13 cases) and 92.6%(38/41 cases), respectively. The first session and total treatment, stone-free rates for ESWL were 34.5% (38/110 cases) and 79.0%(87/110 cases), respectively. The complication rates associated with URS and ESWL were 13.8%(10/72 cases) and 11.8% (13/110 cases), respectively. All complications were managed successfully with conservative treatment. Overall costs were similar for both modalities, but detailed cost analysis(e.g. follow-up loss patient) was not performed. Conclusions: Both URS and ESWL are effective treatments for stones larger than 1cm, but ureteroscopy with intracorporeal lithotripsy is the more efficient and cost effective method

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0