ÇϺοä°ü°á¼®¿¡¼ ü¿ÜÃæ°ÝÆÄ ¼â¼®¼ú°ú °¼º¿ä°ü°æÇÏÁ¦¼®¼úÀÇ ºñ±³
Comparison of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Management of Lower Ureteral Stones
¼Û±âÇÐ, ¹ÚÁ¾ÈÆ, ÃÖ¿îºÀ, ±èÀ¯¼±,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¼Û±âÇÐ ( )
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¿øÁֱ⵶º´¿ø
¹ÚÁ¾ÈÆ ( )
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¿øÁֱ⵶º´¿ø
ÃÖ¿îºÀ ( )
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¿øÁֱ⵶º´¿ø
±èÀ¯¼± ( )
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¿øÁֱ⵶º´¿ø
KMID : 0358319920330061055
Abstract
115 patients with lower ureteral stone for which intervention was considered have been treated by ureteroscopy (URS) or in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (FSWL). Of 57 patients treated by URS, successful evacuation of major part of
the
stone
was achieved in 73.7% but 1 patient was required surgery for serious complications. In the ESWL group of 58 patients, stone free rate was recorded in 98.3% and there were no significant complications. We conclude that ESWL should be the primary
method
of intervention in patients with lower ureteral stone, in view of therapeutic effectiveness such as hospital stay, anesthetic risk, stone free rate and complications.
Å°¿öµå
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸