External physical vibration lithecbole in treatment of ureteral calculi with renal colic used different positions: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled clinical study
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6702.2020.01.009
- VernacularTitle: 不同体位物理振动排石机治疗输尿管结石性肾绞痛的前瞻性、多中心、随机对照临床研究
- Author:
Jiacheng ZHANG
1
;
Tianqiang YU
2
;
Zedong LIAO
1
;
Xiangjun LI
3
;
Yanli SUN
2
;
Jun CHEN
1
;
Jun FU
1
;
Bodong LYU
1
;
Yue DUAN
1
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, National Key Clinical Speciality, Chinese Medicine Surgery, Hangzhou 310005, China
2. Department of Urology, Zhejiang RongJun Hospital, Jiaxing 314000, China
3. Department of Urology, ChangXing Second Hospital, Huzhou 313113, China
- Publication Type:Clinical Trail
- Keywords:
Ureteral calculus;
Renal colic;
Posture;
Randomized control research;
Multiple center
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2020;41(1):46-50
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different positions external physical vibration lithecbole (EPVL) therapy for ureteral calculi related renal colic.
Methods:This study was a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. The inclusion criteria was that patients volunteered to participate in the trial and signed informed consent, patients’age ranged from 18-65 years old, ureteral calculi related with renal colic, stone diameter was less than 7 mm, patients were not treated with analgesia, antispasmodic drugs. The exclusion criteria was that combination of severe urinary tract infection, severe hydronephrosis, urinary malformation, severe hypertension, history of cerebrovascular disease, vital organ dysfunction, obesity (BMI>35 kg/m2), history of ureteral calculi exceeded 2 months, abnormal blood coagulation. Patients were randomized into observation group and control group using random number table method. The observation group and the control group were placed on the physical vibration stone arranging machine with head low foot high position and head high foot low position respectively. The inclination angle was 24°. The secondary vibrator vibrated for 6 minutes, then the patient took the prone position and opened the main, the secondary vibrator. The treatment is completed after 6 minutes of vibration. The analgesic effect, stone removal, follow-up effects and adverse reactions in the two groups was compared. We defined the pain relief rate as(VAS score before treatment-VAS score after treatment)/VAS score before treatment×100%.
Results:A total of 100 patients were included in the study, 50 in the observation group and 50 in the control group. There were no statistical difference in the age of the two groups [(41.8±11.7)years and (46.6±13.9 years)], gender distribution [37(male)/13(female) and 42(male)/ 8(female)], location of stones (in the observation group, 19 cases in upper ureter, 7 cases in the middle ureter and 24 cases in the lower ureter; in the control group, 12 cases in the upper ureter, 3 cases in the middle ureter, and 35 in the lower ureter), left and right distribution of stones [21(right)/ 29 (left) and 22 (right)/ 28(left)], long diameter of stones [(5.2±0.9)mm and(5.1±1.1)mm], VAS scores before treatment (7.5±1.4 and 7.6±1.5), and readmission rate [22%(11/50)With 18%(9/50)], 1 week stone removal rate [70%(35/50) and 64%(32/50)]. The incidence of adverse reactions was 8%(4/50) in the observation group including 3 cases of nausea, 1 case of vomiting. The incidence of adverse reactions was 4% in the control group (2/50), which 2 cases showed nausea. The number of patients who chose EPVL, ESWL or surgery for the subsequent treatment in observation group was 35 cases, 9 cases, and 6 cases respectively. The number of patients who chose EPVL, ESWL or surgery for the subsequent treatment in the control group was 35 cases, 10 cases and 5 cases respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The VAS score after treatment of the observation group was lower than that of the control group (2.4±1.3 and 3.7±1.5, P<0.01). The total effective rate of the observation group was higher than that of the control group [94%(47/50) and 76%(38/50), P<0.01]. 46 patients underwent urinary ultrasonography to check the degree of hydronephrosis. The reduction rate of hydronephrosis was higher in the observation group than in the control group [54.5%(18/33) and 30.8%(4/13)], but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.146). In the upper ureteral calculi, the VAS score of the observation group was lower than that of the control group (2.4±0.3 and 3.9±0.4, P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the total effective rate between the two groups. In the lower ureteral calculi, the observation group had low VAS score after treatment. In the control group (2.4±0.2 and 3.5±0.2, P<0.01), there was no significant difference in the total effective rate between the two groups; the middle segment stones were less included (10 in total) and were not discussed.
Conclusions:The external physical vibration lithecbole adopts " head high and low position" has better effect than "head low foot high position" in treatment of ureteral calculi with renal colic, and security is acceptable.
