Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Nephrology (Saint-Pe...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Выбор метода лечения крупных камней верхних отделов мочеточников

Выбор метода лечения крупных камней верхних отделов мочеточников

Abstract

Цель работы улучшение качества лечения пациентов с крупными камнями верхних отделов мочеточников. Проведено сравнение результатов лечения 86 таких пациентов различными методами. Из них 29 пациентам (34,11%) лечение было начато с дистанционной ударно-волновой литотрипсии, 19 (21,35%) пациентам контактной литотрипсии. В некоторых случаях этого было достаточно для удаления конкремента, в некоторых пришлось прибегнуть к дополнительным методам лечения. В 3-ю группу вошли 38 больных (44,54 %), которым выполнена только эндовидеохирургическая уретеролитотомия. В статье представлены результаты сравнения эффективности перечисленных методов лечения на основании сравнения функционального состояния почки, активности пиелонефрита, длительности госпитального периода, необходимости в повторных вмешательствах и анализ осложнений в зависимости от размера камня и длительности его нахождения на одном месте. Статистически доказано, что при крупных камнях верхних отделов мочеточников эндовидеохирургическая уретеролитотомия предпочтительнее контактной и дистанционной литотрипсии. Длительное нахождение камня на одном месте увеличивает риск осложнений и необходимость повторных вмешательств после дистанционной литотрипсии, а контактная литотрипсия не может быть рекомендована для лечения этой группы больных.

THE AIM to improve the quality of treatment of patients with large upper ureteral stones. Comparison of treatment results of 86 such patients in different ways was carried out. In 29 of them (34.11%) the treatment was started with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, in 19 (21.35%) patients contact lithotripsy. In some cases it was enough to remove calculus, in some we had to start additional methods of treatment. The third group, 38 patients (44.54%), was performed only endovideosurgery ureterolithotomy. The article represents results of comparing the efficiency of mentioned treatment methods based on comparison of the functional state of kidneys, pyelonephritis activity, duration of hospital stay, required repeated interventions and analysis of complications, depending on the size of stone and duration of its stay in the same place. Statistically it is proved that at large upper ureteral stones endovideosurgical ureterolithotomy is more preferably than contact and extracorporeal lithotripsy. Long term stay of the stone on the same place increase complications risk and necessity of reinterventions after extracorporeal lithotripsy and contact lithotripsy can’t be recommended for treatment of this group of patients.

Keywords

МОЧЕКАМЕННАЯ БОЛЕЗНЬ, ЭНДОВИДЕОХИРУРГИЧЕСКАЯ УРЕТЕРОЛИТОТОМИЯ, КОНТАКТНАЯ ЛИТОТРИПСИЯ, ДИСТАНЦИОННАЯ УДАРНО-ВОЛНОВАЯ ЛИТОТРИПСИЯ

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
bronze