输尿管单发结石患者体外冲击波碎石术的冲击波频率研究及碎石效果的影响因素探讨

摘要 目的：探讨输尿管单发结石患者体外冲击波碎石术（ESWL）的最佳冲击波频率,并分析碎石效果的影响因素。方法：选取2020年4月~2022年4月期间来空军第九八六医院接受治疗的输尿管单发结石患者148例作为研究对象,按照不同治疗频率将患者分为低频组（48例,频率为60~70次/min）、中频组（51例,频率为80~90次/min）和高频组（49例,频率为100~120次/min）,观察三组患者的碎石结局、肾功能指标以及并发症发生情况。统计三组患者的碎石结局,按照碎石结局的不同分为成功组和失败组。收集所有患者的一般资料,采用多因素Logistic回归分析输尿管单发结石患者碎石效果的影响因素。结果：三组碎石成功率组间对比无统计学差异（P>0.05）。三组术后1 d、术后14 d尿素氮（BUN）、血肌酐（Scr）均升高后下降（P<0.05）。高频组、中频组术后1 d BUN、Scr均高于低频组,且高频组高于中频组（P<0.05）。高频组、中频组的并发症总发生率高于低频组（P<0.05）。单因素分析显示,输尿管单发结石患者ESWL术后碎石失败与病程、结石位置、结石直径、肾绞痛、结石嵌顿、服用坦索罗辛有关（P<0.05）。多因素Logistic回归分析显示,病程偏长、结石位置中下段、结石直径偏大、结石嵌顿、未服用坦索罗辛是碎石失败的危险因素（P＜0.05）。结论：低、中、高三种频率下的ESWL用于输尿管单发结石患者,均有较好的碎石效果。但随着频率的增加,患者一过性肾功能损伤增大,且并发症发生风险也相应增加。此外,病程偏长、结石位置中下段、结石直径偏大、结石嵌顿、未服用坦索罗辛是碎石失败的危险因素,可考虑结合上述因素进行综合评估选择最佳治疗方式。     

输尿管上段嵌顿性结石两种微创钬激光碎石术临床疗效对比研究

目的:探讨应用钬激光在输尿管镜碎石术及微创经皮肾穿刺取石术处理输尿管上段嵌顿性结石的疗效和并发症的比较。方法:2009年2月～2011年6月我院182例输尿管上段嵌顿性结石患者,应用钬激光经URL治疗85例,MPCNL治疗97例,对两种方法疗效进行临床评价比较。结果:MPCNL术中一期碎石清除率为(93/97)95.88%,5例残石者残石大小0.2～0.4 mm,术后1月结石清除率为(97/97)100%,平均手术时间75±29 min,平均住院时间为12±5 d,平均住院费用14589±3284 RMB;URL术一期碎石清除率为(39/85)45.88%,46例残石者残石大小0.3～1.5 mm,需术后联合体外冲击波碎石术等治疗排石,术后1月结石清除率为(72/85)84.71%,平均手术时间102±43 min,平均住院时间为6±3 d,平均住院费用9086±1259 RMB。MPCNL术中有1例因穿刺后出血改行二期MPCNL术。URL术中输尿管扭曲、狭窄、息肉出血视野模糊不清,需改行切开取石术6例,结石移位到肾内改行MPCNL术11例。结论:对于嵌顿性输尿管上段结石,采用MPCNL和URL联合钬激光治疗各有其优缺点。MPCNL安全、高效、并发症少、创伤小、结石清除率高;URL相对具有恢复快、住院时间短、费用较低等优点,但结石移位发生率、残石率较高,需其他辅助方式治疗结石。因此输尿管上段嵌顿性结石的手术方式选择应根据结石位置、大小、梗阻程度、肾积水量、患者经济状况,术前检查结果,充分评估手术风险和难度,结合患者个体差异,术者的经验制定出最佳治疗方案。     

The modulus of toughness of urinary calculi

To improve the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment, it is desirable to identify the physical properties of urinary calculi could offer direct correlation with their fragilities during ESWL and thus could be used to guide treatment procedures for more effective stone fragmentation. Thirty stone specimens removed surgically were compressed by an axial testing system to measure the compressive strength and trace the stress-strain curve. Image analysis software SigmaScan (Jandel Co.) was used to calculate the area under the stress-strain curve, the modulus of toughness, for each stone. The values of compressive strength measured were similar to those reported by other researchers. The modulus of toughness of urinary calculi correlates with clinical representation of the stone fragility during ESWL. The modulus of toughness could be an index to evaluate the physical property of urinary calculi that could be used to guide treatment procedures for more effective stone fragmentation.     

ESWL treatment of urinary stones in children--the overview of 14 years of experience

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment has been used at Department of Urology, University Hospital "Osijek", Croatia, since July 1988. Until December 2001 seven thousand and eight hundred patients underwent ESWL for urinary stones, 68 of them were children (0.87%). Sixty-eight children aged 4 to 15 years (average 10.14 years) underwent ESWL. They were treated for the total of 91 stones: 35 (38.46%) caliceal, 23 (25.27%) in pyelon, 7 (7.69%) in pyeloureteric segment and 14 (15.38%) ureteral. Staghorn calculi were found in 6 (6.59%) patients and multiple stones (four or more stones in the same kidney) in 6 (6.59%). There was total of 95 ESWL sessions performed in 68 patients (1.39 session per patient). Fifty-six patients (82.35%) without residual stones found at the control plain film and sonography of urinary tract were considered "stone free". Addition of 5 patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments (less than 4 mm) increases overall success rate to 89.70%. ESWL is a simple, safe and effective procedure in the management of urolithiasis in childhood. Clinical experience of our institution confirms ESWL as the first line treatment for kidney stones in the pediatric age patients.     

坦洛新对输尿管下段结石患者体外冲击波碎石术后排石及血清IL-6，IL-10和CRP水平的影响

目的:探讨输尿管下段结石行体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)后应用坦洛新辅助排石的临床效果及对患者血清白细胞介素-6(IL-6)、白细胞介素-10(IL-10)、C反应蛋白(CRP)水平的影响。方法:选取我院2015年1月～2016年12月收治的122例输尿管下段结石患者,采用随机数字表法均分为两组。于ESWL术后,对照组给予硝苯地平治疗,观察组予以坦洛新治疗。记录比较两组术后排石效果、疼痛情况,治疗前后血清IL-6、IL-10和CRP水平的变化及不良反应的发生情况。结果:治疗后,观察组无石率(91.8%)明显高于对照组(78.7%)(P0.05);观察组排石时间短于对照组,排石直径大于对照组(P0.05);观察组患者血清IL-6,IL-10及CRP水平均显著低于对照组(P0.05)。与对照组相比,观察组肾绞痛发生率、镇痛剂使用率及VAS评分均较低(P0.01)。用药期间,两组均未发生明显不良反应(P0.05)。结论:坦洛新能有效提高输尿管下段结石患者体外冲击波碎石术的排石效果,减轻机体损伤,缓解术后疼痛,并且安全性较高。     

输尿管镜钬激光碎石术后残留结石的危险因素分析

目的：分析与输尿管镜钬激光碎石术后致使结石残留相关的临床危险因素。方法：选取我院214例接受输尿管镜钬激光碎石术的输尿管结石患者进行回顾性分析,对14个特征性临床因素与结石残留的关系应用单因素方差分析进行评价,对存在相关性的临床因素再应用计算机COX比例风险模型进行多因素分析。结果：全组患者结石残留率为42．52％（91／214）。单因素方差分析：ESWL史、惠侧肾功能、结石位置、结石最大径、击碎后最大径、术后第1日输液量、术后第1日尿量、术后下床时间、术后解痉利尿药使用与术后结石残留相关（P值均〈0．05）;经过COX比例风险模型检测,患侧肾功能、结石位置、击碎后最大径、是结石残留的危险因素（P〈0．05）,而术后第1日尿量及术后解痉利尿药使用是结石残留的保护因素（P〈0．05）。结论：患侧肾功能不良、结石位于上段、击碎后直径仍大易导致残留结石,而术后第1天尿量较多且适当应用解痉利尿药能减少残留结石。     

输尿管镜下钬激光治疗输尿管结石疗效分析

目的:探讨输尿管镜下钬激光治疗输尿管结石的疗效。方法:2010年2月到2012年8月我院共收治输尿管结石患者60例,随机分为治疗组与对照组,每组各30例。对照组采用传统的冲击波碎石手术进行治疗,治疗组则采用输尿管镜钬激光治疗。观察两组患者的手术时间、住院时间、结石排除情况和尿常规等指标的变化情况,并评定患者的治疗效果。结果:治疗组患者的手术时间为(46.25±24.53)min与住院时间(3.51±0.62)d明显少于对照组手术时间(54.93±20.81)min,与住院时间(4.90±1.26)d,组间对比差异明显(P0.05)。治疗组的有效率与对照组的有效率分别为96.7%和86.7%,组间对比差异明显(P0.05)。结论:输尿管镜下钬激光治疗输尿管结石具有手术快、创伤少、恢复快等优点,值得推广应用。     

应用管路封堵器处理输尿管上段结石的随机对照研究

目的:研究辅助使用管路封堵器后,采用输尿管镜下碎石术处理输尿管上段结石的效果及安全性。方法:选取自2012年6月至2013年2月需输尿管镜处理输尿管上段结石的病例198例,随机分为应用管路封堵器组98例和对照组100例。封堵器组术中输尿管镜发现结石后,封堵器组患者使用英诺伟IVX-SC10型管路封堵器超越结石远端封堵结石,再予钬激光碎石,对照组术中输尿管镜发现结石后,直接予钬激光碎石,术后留置双J管2至4周。记录并随访患者输尿管镜术后结石清除率及肾脏出血相关并发症。结果:管路封堵器组碎石成功率95.9%(94/98),对照组碎石成功率81.0%(81/100),两组有统计学差异(P=0.0011)。碎石成功后管路封堵器组出现3例(3.2%)肾脏破裂出血,而对照组无肾脏破裂出血,两组无统计学差异(P=0.1048)。结论:辅助应用管路封堵器能提高输尿管镜对于输尿管上段结石的碎石成功率;其使用并没有增加术后肾脏出血并发症的发生。     

输尿管镜钬激光碎石术与气压弹道碎石术治疗下段输尿管结石的临床疗效分析

目的:探讨输尿管镜钬激光碎石术与气压弹道碎石术治疗下段输尿管结石的临床疗效。方法:选取146例输尿管下段结石患者,将所有患者随机分为试验组和治疗组两组,其中试验组患者均采取输尿管镜钬激光碎石术进行治疗,而对照组患者则采取气压弹道碎石术进行治疗,比较两组患者手术前后的血清肌酐(Serum creatinine,Sc R)和血尿素氮(Blood urea nitrogen,BUN)等手术指标。结果:对照组患者完成手术所需要的时间和住院时间以及血尿时间均明显长于试验组患者,对照组患者之中的碎石成功率为71.91%(105例),明显低于试验组患者的碎石成功率84.25%(123例),两组患者之间的数据比较均有统计学意义(均P0.05)。两组患者手术之前的BUN和Sc R水平均无明显差异,而在手术之后两组患者的BUN和Sc R水平均显著降低,并且试验组患者的降低幅度明显大于对照组患者(均P0.05)。试验组患者在术后一个月时的结石排净率为94.52%,明显高于对照组患者的83.56%(P0.05);试验组患者的并发症发生率为3.42%,明显低于对照组患者的13.01%(P0.05);并且试验组患者的止痛药使用比例为20.00,明显低于对照组患者的34.62(均P0.05)。结论:输尿管镜钬激光碎石术在治疗输尿管下段结石方面效果显著,且具有安全性高和创伤小以及恢复速度快等优势。     

侧卧体位下经皮肾穿刺取石术联合经尿道输尿管镜取石术治疗复杂上尿路结石的临床应用价值

目的：探讨侧卧体位下经皮肾穿刺取石术联合经尿道输尿管镜取石术治疗复杂上尿路结石的可行性及临床应用价值。方法：回顾性分析2009年8月至2011年9月我院采用侧卧体住下经皮肾穿刺取石术联合经尿道输尿管镜取石术治疗复杂上尿路结石患者52例的临床资料：患者同时存在肾脏铸型结石或多发结石和或输尿管上段结石,单个结石最大径8-30mm。结果：平均手术时间60分钟（50—120分钟）;术前血红蛋白116±30g／L,术后第一天复查105±26g／L,无大出血需要输血病例;一次结石取净率为86．5％（45／52）,总取净率为92．3％（48／52）。结论：侧卧体位下经皮肾穿刺取石术及经尿道输尿管镜取石术两种术式联合应用具有可行性及互补性,在预防及减少术中出血、获得清晰的手术视野、减少灌注液外渗、增加结石清除速度及碎石成功率、缩短手术时间、减少术后发热等方面疗效显著,为治疗复杂上尿路结石提供了一个可行的新方法。     

Selecting Treatment for Distal Ureteral Calculi: Shock Wave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopy

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) are both effective treatments for removal of distal ureteral calculi, associated with high success rates and limited morbidity. The American Urological Association Ureteral Stones Clinical Guidelines Panel has found both to be acceptable treatment options for patients, based on the stone-free results, morbidity, and retreatment rates for each respective therapy. However, costs and patient satisfaction or preference were not addressed, and the report was based on data derived from older endoscopic and lithotripsy technology. Each of these treatment options has valid advantages and disadvantages. Both modalities are reasonable treatment options for the majority of patients with distal ureteral calculi. Whereas SWL is less invasive, the high, immediate success rate with minimal morbidity and decreased cost makes URS a very valid competitor. The results of treating patients with larger stones favor URS.     

Clinical comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating renal calculi.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for efficacy in treating renal calculi. DESIGN: Non-randomised multicentre cohort study with 3 month follow up and 13 month data collection period. SETTING: Lithotripter centre in London, tertiary referral hospital, and urological clinics in several secondary and tertiary care centres. PATIENTS: 933 of 1001 patients treated by lithotripsy at the lithotripter centre were compared with 195 treated by nephrolithotomy. Missing patients were due to incomplete collection of data. Age and sex distributions and characteristics of the stones were similar in the two treatment groups. Two patients died in the lithotripsy group. Three month follow up was achieved in about 84% of both groups (783/933 for lithotripsy; 163/195 for nephrolithotomy). INTERVENTIONS: The nephrolithotomy group had surgical nephrolithotomy alone. In the lithotripsy group 83% (774/933) had lithotripsy alone, 11% (103/933) had combined lithotripsy and nephrolithotomy, and 6% (56/933) had lithotripsy plus ureteroscopy. Single and combined lithotripter treatments were analysed as one group and compared with nephrolithotomy. END POINT: Presence of stones three months after treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Presence of residual stones was assessed by plain radiography, ultrasonography, or intravenous urography. After adjustment for age and size and position of stone for patients with single stones the likelihood of being free of stones three months after treatment was significantly greater in the nephrolithotomy group than the lithotripsy group (odds ratio 6.6; 95% confidence interval 3.0 to 14.6) and the response was particularly pronounced with staghorn calculi (62% (8/13) v 15% (141/96) patients free of stones after nephrolithotomy and lithotripsy, respectively). OTHER FINDINGS: 19%(146/775) of patients who had had lithotripsy had to be readmitted within three months after treatment compared with 14%(23/162) who had nephrolithotomy; and 64%(94/146) of readmissions after lithotripsy were for complications compared with 30%(7/23) of readmissions after nephrolithotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Nephrolithotomy may be preferable to lithotripsy for treating renal stones and it may not be wise to invest heavily in lithotripsy facilities.     

Application of Ureteroscope in Emergency Treatment with Persistent Renal Colic Patients during Pregnancy

Background

Although the application of ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi during pregnancy has been on the rise, for persistent renal colic patients without ultrasound-detected ureteral calculi, it may represent a clinical dilemma due to the potential risks for both mother and fetus.

Objective

The aim of the present study is to present our experience with the application of the ureteroscope in the emergency treatment of persistent renal colic patients during pregnancy.

Methods

From March 2009 to September 2014, a total of 117 pregnant women who received ureteroscopy for persistent renal colic were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into three groups according to duration of the persistent renal colic: Group A (within 12 hours; 24 cases); Group B (12 to 24 hours; 76 cases); and Group C (more than 24 hours; 17 cases). The stone-free rate, complications, and other qualitative data were analyzed.

Results

Of the 117 patients, 31 patients who were found not to have renal or ureteral calculi received ureteroscopic double-J (DJ) stent insertion, whereas 86 patients who were found with ureteral calculi received ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and DJ stent insertion. Among them, 24 patients (27.9%) were found with ureteral calculi by ureteroscopy rather than ultrasound. In addition, 73 patients (84.9%) had complete fragmentation of calculi; 12 patients (10.3%) had a threatened abortion (the rates of threatened abortion in Groups A, B and C were 8.3% vs. 6.5% vs. 29.4%; Group C compared with Groups A and B, p<0.05), and one patient (1.2%) had urosepsis (in Group C). However, these complications were cured with conservative treatment, without postpartum infant and maternal complications.

Conclusion

For pregnant patients with persistent renal colic/ureteral calculi and hydronephrosis, ureteroscopic DJ stent insertion and URSL are effective and safe options when conservative treatment fails, even if no urinary calculi were found by ultrasound. At the same time, for patients with persistent renal colic during pregnancy, early application of ureteroscopy may reduce the risk of preterm birth.     

输尿管软镜结合输尿管硬镜治疗复杂上尿路结石的效果评价及对预后的影响

目的 探讨输尿管软镜协同输尿管硬镜治疗复杂上尿路结石的临床效果.方法 选择我院收治的复杂上尿路结石患者96例,按入院顺序分为对照组和观察组,每组48例.对照组采取输尿管硬镜钬激光碎石术治疗,观察组采取输尿管软镜协同输尿管硬镜钬激光碎石术治疗.比较两组患者1次性碎石成功率、结石彻底清除率、炎症反应情况以及生活质量、住院时...     

胆道镜结合微爆破碎石治疗复杂性胆道结石

目的:探讨微爆破碎石用于治疗复杂胆道结石的治疗体会。方法:在胆道镜直视下,分别在术中和术后对158例复杂的胆道结石患者进行微爆破碎石,然后用取石网取出碎石,泥沙状结石随液体流出或让其自行流入肠道。结果:158例患者156例取石成功。取石成功率98.73%。明显提高了胆道取石的成功率。无1例出现胆道穿孔、瘘道穿孔及胆道出血等严重并发症。结论:在胆道镜下,采用微爆破碎石术治疗复杂的胆道结石是一种安全、可靠、高效的方法,可以明显提高结石的取净率。     

Adjunctive Medical Therapy with α-Blocker after Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Renal and Ureteral Stones: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Although some trials assessed the efficacy and safety of the α-blocker in facilitating renal and ureteral stones expulsion after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), the role of the α-blocker in facilitating upper urinary calculi expulsion after ESWL remain controversial.

Aims

To determine the efficacy and safety of the α-blocker in facilitating renal and ureteral stones expulsion after ESWL.

Methods

A literature search was carried out using the PubMed database, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library database to identify relevant studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Pooled effect estimates were obtained using a fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

The meta-analysis included 23 RCTs, α-blocker significantly enhanced expulsion rate of upper urinary tract calculi after ESWL (P<0.00001; RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.12–1.31), significantly promoted steinstrasse expulsion (P=0.03; RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03–1.53), significantly shortened the discharge time of upper urinary tract calculi (P=0.0001; MD -2.12; 95% CI -3.20–-1.04), significantly reduced the patient''s pain VAS score (P=0.001; RR -1.0; 95% CI -1.61–-0.39). Compared with the control group, dizziness (P=0.002; RR 5.48; 95% CI 1.91–15.77), anejaculation (P=0.02; RR 12.17; 95% CI 1.61–91.99) and headache (P=0.04; RR 4.03; 95% CI 1.04–15.72) in the α-blocker group was associated with a higher incidence.

Conclusions

Treatment with α-blocker after ESWL appears to be effective in enhancing expulsion rate of upper urinary tract calculi, shortening the discharge time of upper urinary tract calculi, reducing the patient''s pain. The side effects of α-blocker were light and few.     

排石汤联合盐酸坦洛新辅助体外冲击波碎石术治疗上尿路结石的临床疗效分析

目的:探讨排石汤联合盐酸坦洛新辅助体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗上尿路结石的临床疗效。方法:选择我院2015年1月~2016年9月收治的120例上尿路结石患者,采取随机数字表将其分成两组,每组60例。两组患者均行ESWL治疗,并于术后辅助使用盐酸坦洛新,观察组在上述治疗基础上联合排石汤治疗,对比两组的临床疗效以及治疗前后血清肌酐(Scr)、中性粒细胞明胶酶相关载脂蛋白(NGAL)、半胱氨酸蛋白酶抑制剂C(Cys-C)、肾小球滤过率(GFR)水平的变化情况。结果:观察组总有效率为96.60%,对照组为86.67%,观察组总有效率明显高于对照组(P0.05)。观察组结石排净率为95.00%,明显高于对照组(P0.05);肾绞痛发生率为6.67%,明显低于对照组(P0.05),结石排出时间、血尿持续时间均显著短于对照组(P0.01)。两组1年复发率对比差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者术后2 h、1 d血清NGAL、Cys-C水平逐渐升高,GFR逐渐下降,术后3 d上述指标逐渐恢复。观察组术后1 d、3 d NGAL、Cys-C水平明显低于对照组,GFR明显高于对照组(P0.01)。两组术前术后各时点Scr比较差异均无明显统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:排石汤联合盐酸坦洛新辅助ESWL治疗上尿路结石的临床疗效显著,并可有效改善ESWL引起的肾损伤。     

The effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on antioxidant enzymes in erythrocytes

The effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) on patients undergoing ESWL for renal stone treatment have been studied using activities of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH), superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT), and levels of malondialdehyde (MDA) in the erythrocyte haemolysate. The study included 23 patients (eight women, 15 men with an age range of 23-57 years). Blood samples were taken 5 min before ESWL, in addition to 1 h and 5 days after termination of treatment. Enzyme activities and MDA levels in erythrocytes were measured spectrophotometrically. When compared with the values obtained before ESWL, erythrocyte G6PDH (p = 0.015), SOD (p = 0.036) and CAT (p = 0.01) activities were found to be significantly reduced at the first hour after ESWL. On the fifth day after ESWL, erythrocyte enzyme activities were normalized to the values obtained before ESWL. Although there was a significant difference between values before and 1 h after ESWL (p = 0.003), no difference was detected between 1 h after ESWL and 5 days after ESWL (p > 0.05) in terms of MDA values. The findings of the present study revealed that erythrocyte lipid peroxidation might be induced and antioxidative defence mechanism may be transiently impaired by ESWL.     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the first 50 patients treated in Britain.

Fifty patients have been treated for upper tract urinary calculi by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) at the Devonshire Hospital lithotripter centre since November 1984. The average stay for an inpatient was 3 X 7 days. All patients suffered minimal postoperative discomfort and nearly all resumed normal activity within one day after discharge. Complications requiring auxiliary procedures were few. The procedure was found to be safe, cost effective, extremely well received by patients, and superior to all other methods of removing renal stones. This study confirms that treatment by ESWL is a specialised urological procedure that requires operators who are also trained in open, percutaneous, and ureteroscopic surgery and with a back up of a radiological team skilled in percutaneous renal puncture.     

胆道镜结合微爆破碎石治疗复杂性胆道结石

目的：探讨微爆破碎石用于治疗复杂胆道结石的治疗体会。方法：在胆道镜直视下,分别在术中和术后对158例复杂的胆道结石患者进行微爆破碎石,然后用取石网取出碎石,泥沙状结石随液体流出或让其自行流入肠道。结果：158例患者156例取石成功。取石成功率98.73%。明显提高了胆道取石的成功率。无1例出现胆道穿孔、瘘道穿孔及胆道出血等严重并发症。结论：在胆道镜下,采用微爆破碎石术治疗复杂的胆道结石是一种安全、可靠、高效的方法,可以明显提高结石的取净率。