摘要
目的观察物理振动排石对于输尿管结石性肾绞痛的治疗效果。方法 90例输尿管结石性肾绞痛患者按交替随机分组法分为物理振动排石组和药物治疗组各45例。两组患者性别、年龄、结石大小及分布比较均无统计学差异(均P>0.05)。物理振动排石组患者在进行数字评分法(VAS)评分后予呋塞米针20mg静脉推注及坦索罗辛胶囊0.4mg口服,待膀胱充盈后进行排石治疗。排石结束后再次进行VAS评分,必要时第2天重复治疗1次。1周后回访,并进行CT或超声检查了解结石排出情况。药物治疗组患者行VAS评分评价肾绞痛疼痛程度后,采用曲马多针100mg或哌替啶针100mg+山莨菪碱针10mg肌肉注射缓解肾绞痛,疼痛缓解后重新进行VAS评分。1周后回访,并进行CT或超声检查了解结石排出情况。分析比较两种治疗方式缓解肾绞痛及排石的疗效,并比较两组患者的不良反应情况。结果物理振动排石组患者排石率明显高于药物治疗组(x^2=8.927,P<0.01),在肾绞痛缓解程度上与药物治疗组相当(t=0.392,P>0.05),1周内肾绞痛复发率则明显好于药物治疗组(x^2=4.1 14,P<0.05)。结论物理振动排石机可促进结石排出,能有效缓解输尿管结石性肾绞痛,作为一种无创、安全的排石治疗方式具有临床应用价值。
Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of external physical vibration lithecbole （EPVL） in treatment of ureteral calculus and renal colic. Methods Ninety patients with ureteral calculus and renal colic admitted during January to July 2014 were randomly assigned to receive physical vibration lithecbole treatment（EPVL group, n=45） or receive tramadol （or pethi- dine） injection and 654-2 for pain relief （medicine group, n=45）. CT or ultrasound examination was performed to examine the stone expulsion and VAS pain scores were measured before and 1 week after treatment. Results The calculus expulsion rate of EPCL group was significantly higher than that of medicine group （x^2=8.927, P〈0.01 ）. There was no significant difference in pain relief between two groups （t=0.392, P〉0.05）. The recurrent rate of renal colic within one week in EPCL group was significantly lower than that of medicine group（x^2=4.114, P〈0.05）. Conclusion EVPL as a safe and noninvasive method can facilitate the ex- pulsion of calculus and effectively relief the renal colic of ureteral calculus.
出处
《浙江医学》
CAS
2015年第8期679-681,共3页
Zhejiang Medical Journal
关键词
物理振动排石
输尿管结石
肾绞痛
排石率
External physical vibration lithecbole Ureteral calculus Renal colic Stone expulsion rate
