Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации (2016 год) - часть 16

 

  Главная      Учебники - Разные     Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации - 2016 год

 

поиск по сайту            правообладателям  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

содержание   ..  14  15  16  17   ..

 

 

Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации (2016 год) - часть 16

 

 

123

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь 

14. Patel T., Kozakowski K., Hruby G. et al. Skin to stone distance is an indepen-

dent predictor of stone-free status following shockwave lithotripsy //J. Endourol. — 
2009 Sep. — Vol. 23, N 9. — P. 1383–1385.

15. Zarse C.A., Hameed T.A., Jackson M.E. et al. CT visible internal stone struc-

ture, but not Hounsfi eld unit value, of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) calculi 
predicts lithotripsy fragility in vitro //Urol. Res. — 2007 Aug. — Vol. 35, N 4. — 
P. 201–206.

16. Schwartz B.F., Schenkman N., Armenakas N.A. et al. Imaging characteristics 

of indinavircalculi // J. Urol. — 1999. — Vol. 161. — P. 1085–1087.

17.  Sourtzis S., Thibeau J.F., Damry N. et al. Radiologic investigation of renal 

colic: unenhanced helical CT compared with excretory urography //AJR Am. J. 
Roentgenol. — 1999 Jun. — Vol. 172, N 6. — P. 1491–1494.

18. Miller O.F., Rineer S.K., Reichard S.R. et al. Prospective comparison of 

unenhanced spiral computed tomography and intravenous urogram in the eval-
uation of acute flank pain //Urology. — 1998 Dec. — Vol. 52, N 6. — P. 982–
987.

19. Yilmaz S., Sindel T., Arslan G. et al. Renal colic: comparison of spiral C.T, 

US and IVU in the detection of ureteral calculi //Eur. Radiol. — 1998. — Vol. 8, N 
2. — P. 212–217.

20. Niall O., Russell J., MacGregor R. et al. A comparison of noncontrast com-

puterized tomography with excretory urography in the assessment of acute fl ank 
pain //J. Urol. — 1999 Feb. — Vol. 161, N 2. — P. 534–537.

21.  Wang J.H., Shen S.H., Huang S.S. et al. Prospective comparison of unen-

hanced spiral computed tomography and intravenous urography in the evaluation of 
acute renal colic //J. Chin. Med. Assoc. — 2008 Jan. — Vol. 71, N 1. — P. 30–36.

22.  Shine S. Urinary calculus: IVU vs. CT renal stone? A critically appraised 

topic //Abdom. Imaging. — 2008 Jan–Feb. — Vol. 33, N 1. — P. 41–43.

23. Thomson J.M., Glocer J., Abbott C. et al. Computed tomography versus in-

travenous urography in diagnosis of acute fl ank pain from urolithiasis: a random-
ized study comparing imaging costs and radiation dose //Australas Radiol. — 2001 
Aug. — Vol. 45, N 3. — P. 291–297.

24. Kim S.C., Burns E.K., Lingeman J.E. et al. Cystine calculi: correlation of CT-

visible structure, CT number, and stonemorphology with fragmentation by shock 
wave lithotripsy //Urol. Res. — 2007 Dec. — Vol. 35, N 6. — P. 319–324.

25. Jellison F.C., Smith J.C., Heldt J.P. et al. Eff ect of low dose radiation comput-

erized tomography protocols on distal ureteral calculus detection //J. Urol. — 2009 
Dec. — Vol. 182, N 6. — P. 2762–2767.

26. Niemann T., Kollmann T., Bongartz G. Diagnostic performance of low-dose 

CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis //AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. — 
2008 Aug. — Vol. 191, N 2. — P. 396–401.

27.  Phillips E., Kieley S., Johnson E.B. et al. Emergency room management of 

ureteral calculi: current practices //J. Endourol. — 2009 Jun. — Vol. 23, N 6. — 
P. 1021–1024.

28.  Micali S., Grande M., Sighinolfi  M.C. et al. Medical therapy of urolithia-

sis //J. Endourol. — 2006 Nov. — Vol. 20, N 11. — P. 841–847.

29. Engeler D.S., Schmid S., Schmid H.P. The ideal analgesic treatment for acute 

renal colic-theory and practice //Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. — 2008. — Vol. 42, N 
2. — P. 137–142.

124

Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации

30.  Shokeir A.A., Abdulmaaboud M., Farage Y. et al. Resistive index in renal 

colic: the eff ect of nonsteroidal antiinfl ammatorydrugs //BJU Int. — 1999 Aug. — 
Vol. 84, N 3. — P. 249–251.

31. Ebell M.H. NSAIDs vs. opiates for pain in acute renal colic //Am. Fam. Phy-

sician. — 2004 Nov. — Vol. 70, N 9. — P. 1682.

32. Holdgate A., Pollock T. Systematic review of the relative effi

  cacy of non-ste-

roidal anti-infl ammatory drugs and opioids in the treatment of acute renal colic //
BMJ. — 2004 Jun. — Vol. 328, N 7453. — P. 1401.

33. Lee A., Cooper M.G., Craig J.C. et al. Eff ects of nonsteroidal anti-infl amma-

tory drugs on postoperative renal function in adults with normal renal function //
Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. — 2007. — Vol. 18, Issue 2:CD002765.

34. Seitz C., Liatsikos E., Porpiglia F. et al. Medical therapy to facilitate the pas-

sage of stones: What Is the Evidence? //Eur. Urol. — 2009 Sep. — Vol. 56, N 3.4. — 
P. 55–71.

35.  Ramsey S., Robertson A., Ablett M.J. et al. Evidence-based drainage of in-

fected hydronephrosis secondary to ureteric calculi //J. Endourol. — 2010 Feb. — 
Vol. 24, N 2. — P. 185–189.

36.  Lynch M.F., Anson K.M., Patel U. Percutaneous nephrostomy and ureteric 

stent insertion for acute renal deobstruction. Consensus based guidelines //Br. J. 
Med. Surg. Urol. — 2008 Nov. — Vol. 1, N 3. — P. 120–125.

37.  Pearle M.S., Pierce H.L., Miller G.L. et al. Optimal method of urgent de-

compression of the collecting system for obstruction and infection due to ureteral 
calculi //J. Urol. — 1998 Oct. — Vol. 160, N 4. — P. 1260–1264.

38. Mokhmalji H., Braun P.M., Portillo F.J. et al. Percutaneous nephrostomy ver-

sus ureteral stents for diversion of hydronephrosis caused by stones: A prospective, 
randomized clinical trial //J. Urol. — 2001 Apr. — Vol. 165, N 4. — P. 1088–1092.

39. Skolarikos A., Laguna M.P., Alivizatos G. et al. The role for active monitor-

ing in urinary stones: a systematic review //J. Endourol. — 2010 Jun. — Vol. 24, 
N 6. — P. 923–930.

40. Preminger G.M., Tiselius H.G., Assimos D.G. et al. American Urological As-

sociation Education and Research, Inc; European Association of Urology. 2007 
Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi //Eur. Urol. — 2007 Dec. — 
Vol. 52, N 6. — P. 1610–1631.

41.  Miller O.F., Kane C.J. Time to stone passage for observed ureteral calculi: 

a guide for patient education //J. Urol. — 1999 Sep. — Vol. 162, N 3. — Pt 1. — 
P. 688–690; discussion 690–691.

42. Glowacki L.S., Beecroft M.L., Cook R.J. et al. The natural history of asymp-

tomatic urolithiasis //J. Urol. — 1992 Feb. — Vol. 147, N 2. — P. 319–321.

43. Burgher A., Beman M., Holtzman J.L. et al. Progression of nephrolithiasis: 

long-term outcomes with observation of asymptomatic calculi //J. Endourol. — 
2004 Aug. — Vol. 18, N 6. — P. 534–539.

44. Hubner W., Porpaczy P. Treatment of caliceal calculi //Br. J. Urol. — 1990 

Jul. — Vol. 66, N 1. — P. 9–11.

45. Inci K., Sahin A., Islamoglu E. et al. Prospective long-term followup of ptients 

with asymptomatic lower pole caliceal stones //J. Urol. — 2007 Jun. — Vol. 177, N 
6. — P. 2189−2192.

46. Keeley F.X. Jr, Tilling K., Elves A. et al. Preliminary results of a randomized 

controlled trial of prophylactic shock wave lithotripsy for small asymptomatic renal 
calyceal stones //BJU Int. — 2001 Jan. — Vol. 87, N 1. — P. 1–8.

125

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь 

47. Osman M.M., Alfano Y., Kamp S. et al. 5-year-follow-up of patients with clin-

ically insignifi cant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy //
Eur. Urol. — 2005 Jun. — Vol. 47, N 6. — P. 860–864.

48. Collins J.W., Keeley F.X. Is there a role for prophylactic shock wave lithotripsy 

for asymptomatic calyceal stones? //Curr. Opin. Urol. — 2002 Jul. — Vol. 12, N 
4. — P. 281−286.

49. Rebuck D.A., Macejko A., Bhalani V. et al. The natural history of renal stone 

fragments following ureteroscopy //Urology. — 2011 Mar. — Vol. 77, N 3. — 
P. 564–568.

50.  Liatsikos E.N., Katsakiori P.F., Assimakopoulos K. et al. Doxazosin for the 

management of distal-ureteral stones //J. Endourol. — 2007 May. — Vol. 21, N 
5. — P. 538–541.

51. Hollingsworth J.M., Rogers M.A., Kaufman S.R. et al. Medical therapy to fa-

cilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis //Lancet. — 2006 Sep. — Vol. 368, 
N 9542. — P. 1171–1179.

52.  Gravina G.L., Costa A.M., Ronchi P. et al. Tamsulosin treatment increases 

clinical success rate of single extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones //
Urology. — 2005 Jul. — Vol. 66, N 1. — P. 24–28.

53. Resim S., Ekerbicer H.C., Ciftci A. Role of tamsulosin in treatment of patients 

with steinstrasse developing after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy //Urol-
ogy. — 2005 Nov. — Vol. 66, N 5. — P. 945–948.

54. Borghi L., Meschi T., Amato F. et al. Nifedipine and methylprednisolone in 

facilitating ureteral stone passage: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 
study //J. Urol. — 1994 Oct. — Vol. 152, N 4. — P. 1095–1098.

55. Porpiglia F., Destefanis P., Fiori C. et al. Eff ectiveness of nifedipine and defl a-

zacort in the management of distal ureter stones //Urology. — 2000 Oct. — Vol. 56, 
N 4. — P. 579–582.

56. Dellabella M., Milanese G., Muzzonigro G. Randomized trial of the effi

  cacy 

of tamsulosin, nifedipine and phloroglucinol in medical expulsive therapy for distal 
ureteral calculi //J. Urol. — 2005 Jul. — Vol. 174, N 1. — P. 167–172.

57.  Naja V., Agarwal M.M., Mandal A.K. et al. Tamsulosin facilitates earlier 

clearance of stone fragments and reduces pain after shockwave lithotripsy for renal 
calculi; results from an open-label randomized study //Urology. — 2008 Nov. — 
Vol. 72, N 5. — P. 1006–1011.

58. Schuler T.D., Shahani R., Honey R.J. et al. Medical expulsive therapy as an 

adjunct to improve shockwave lithotripsy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-
analysis //J. Endourol. — 2009 Mar. — Vol. 23, N 3. — P. 387–393.

59. Parsons J.K., Hergan L.A., Sakamoto K. et al. Effi

  cacy of alpha blockers for 

the treatment of ureteral stones //J. Urol. — 2007 Mar. — Vol. 177, N 3. – P. 983–
987.

60. Singh A., Alter H.J., Littlepage A. A systematic review of medical therapy to 

facilitate passage of ureteral calculi //Ann. Emerg. Med. — 2007 Nov. — Vol. 50, 
N 5. — P. 552–563.

61.  Arrabal-Martin M., Valle-Diaz de la Guardia F., Arrabal-Polo M.A. et 

al. Treatment of ureteral lithiasis with tamsulosin: literature review and meta-
analysis //Urol. Int. — 2010. — Vol. 84, N 3. — P. 254–259.

62.  Lojanapiwat B., Kochakarn W., Suparatchatpan N. et al. Eff ectiveness  of 

low-dose and standard-dose tamsulosin in the treatment of distal ureteric stones: 

126

Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации

A randomized controlled study //J. Int. Med. Res. — 2008 May–Jun. — Vol. 36, 
N 3. — P. 529–536.

63.  Wang C.J., Huang S.W., Chang C.H. Effi

  cacy of an alpha1 blocker in 

expulsive therapy of lower ureteral stones //J. Endourol. — 2008 Jan. — Vol. 22, 
N 1. — P. 41–46.

64. Kaneko T., Matsushima H., Morimoto H. et al. Effi

    cacy of low dose tamsulosin 

medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones in Japanese male patients: a randomized 
controlled study //Int. J. Urol. — 2010 May. — Vol. 17, N 5. — P. 462–465.

65.  Al-Ansari A., Al-Naimi A., Alobaidy A. et al. Effi

  cacy of tamsulosin in the 

management of lower ureteral stones: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled 
study of 100 patients //Urology. — 2010 Jan. — Vol. 75, N 1. — P. 4–7.

66.  Yilmaz E., Batislam E., Basar M.M. et al. The comparison and effi

  cacy of 

3 diff erent alpha1-adrenergic blockers for distal ureteral stones //J. Urol. — 2005 
Jun. — Vol. 173, N 6. — P. 2010–2012.

67.  Zehri A.A., Ather M.H., Abbas F. et al. Preliminary study of effi

  cacy  of 

doxazosin as a medical expulsive therapy of distal ureteric stones in a randomized 
clinical trial //Urology. — 2010 Jun. — Vol. 75, N 6. — P. 1285–1288.

68. Mohseni M.G., Hosseini S.R., Alizadeh F. Effi

  cacy of terazosin as a facilitator 

agent for expulsion of the lower ureteral stones //Saudi Med. J. — 2006 Jun. — 
Vol. 27, N 6. — P. 838–840.

69.  Agrawal M., Gupta M., Gupta A. et al. Prospective Randomized Trial 

Comparing Effi

  cacy of Alfuzosin and Tamsulosin in Management of Lower 

Ureteral Stones //Urology. — 2009 Apr. — Vol. 73, N 4. — P. 706–709.

70. Pedro R.N., Hinck B., Hendlin K. et al. Alfuzosin stone expulsion therapy for 

distal ureteral calculi: a double-blind, placebo controlled study //J. Urol. — 2008 
Jun. — Vol. 179, N 6. — P. 2244–2247; discussion 2247.

71.  Ahmed A.F., Al-Sayed A.Y. Tamsulosin versus Alfuzosin in the Treatment 

of Patients with Distal Ureteral Stones: Prospective, Randomized, Comparative 
Study //Korean J. Urol. — 2010 Mar. — Vol. 51, N 3. — P. 193–197.

72.  Chau L.H., Tai D.C., Fung B.T. et al. Medical expulsive therapy using 

alfuzosin for patient presenting with ureteral stone less than 10 mm: a prospective 
randomized controlled trial //Int. J. Urol. — 2011 Jul. — Vol. 18, N 7. — P. 510–
514.

73. Sun X., He L., Ge W. et al. Effi

  cacy of selective alpha1D-Blocker Naftopidil 

as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones //J. Urol. — 2009 Apr. — 
Vol. 181, N 4. — P. 1716–1720.

74. Zhou S.G., Lu J.L., Hui J.H. Comparing effi

    cacy of < (1)D-receptor antagonist 

naftopidil and < 1A/Dreceptor antagonist tamsulosin in management of distal ureteral 
stones //World J. Urol. — 2011 Dec. — Vol. 29, N 6. — P. 767–771.

75. Tsuzaka Y., Matsushima H., Kaneko T. et al. Naftopidil vs silodosin in medical 

expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: a randomized controlled study in Japanese 
male patients //Int. J. Urol. — 2011 Nov. — Vol. 18, N 11. — P. 792–795.

76. Itoh Y., Okada A., Yasui T. et al. Effi

  cacy of selective alpha1A adrenoceptor 

antagonist silodosin in the medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones //Int. J. 
Urol. — 2011 Sep. — Vol. 18, N 9. — P. 672–674.

77. Porpiglia F., Ghignone G., Fiori C. et al. Nifedipine versus tamsulosin for the 

management of lowerureteral stones //J. Urol. — 2004 Aug. — Vol. 172, N 2. — 
P. 568–571.

127

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь 

78.  Ye Z., Yang H., Li H. et al. A multicentre, prospective, randomized trial: 

comparative effi

  cacy of tamsulosin and nifedipine in medical expulsive therapy for 

distal ureteric stones with renal colic //BJU Int. — 2011 Jul. — Vol. 108, N 2. — 
P. 276–279.

79.  Porpiglia F., Vaccino D., Billia M. et al. Corticosteroids and tamsulosin in 

the medical expulsive therapy for symptomatic distal ureter stones: single drug or 
association? //Eur. Urol. — 2006 Aug. — Vol. 50, N 2. — P. 339.

80.  Dellabella M/, Milanese G/, Muzzonigro G. Medical-expulsive therapy for 

distal ureterolithiasis: randomized prospective study on role of corticosteroids used 
in combination with tamsulosin simplifi ed treatment regimen and health-related 
quality of life //Urology. — 2005 Oct. — Vol. 66, N 4. — P. 712–715.

81.  Ferre R.M., Wasielewski J.N., Strout T.D. et al. Tamsulosin for ureteral 

stones in the emergency department: a Randomized controlled trial //Ann. Emerg. 
Med. — 2009 Sep. — Vol. 54, N 3. — P. 432–439.

82. Hermanns T., Sauermann P., Rufi bach K. et al. Is there a role for tamsulosin 

in the treatment of distal ureteral stones of 7 mm or less? Results of a randomised, 
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial //Eur. Urol. — 2009 Sep. — Vol. 56, N 3. — 
P. 407–412.

83.  Vincendeau S., Bellissant E., Houlgatte A. et al.; Tamsulosin Study 

GrouP. Tamsulosin hydrochloride vsplacebo for management of distal ureteral 
stones: a multicentric, randomized, double-blind trial //Arch. Intern. Med. — 2010 
Dec. — Vol. 170, N 22. — P. 2021–2027.

84.  Ochoa-Gomez R., Prieto-Diaz-Chavez E., Trujillo-Hernandez B. et al. 

Tamsulosin does not have greater effi

  cacy than conventional treatment for distal 

ureteral stone expulsion in Mexican patients //Urol. Res. — 2011 Dec. — Vol. 39, 
N 6. — P. 491–495.

85.  Yencilek F., Erturhan S., Canguven O. et al. Does tamsulosin change the 

management of proximallylocated ureteral stones? //Urol. Res. — 2010 Jun. — 
Vol. 38, N 3. — P. 195–199.

86.  Kupeli B., Irkilata L., Gurocak S. et al. Does tamsulosin enhance lower 

ureteral stone clearance with or without shock wave lithotripsy? //Urology. — 2004 
Dec. — Vol. 64, N 6. — P. 1111–1115.

87. Wang H., Liu K., Ji Z. et al. Eff ect of alpha1-adrenergic antagonists on lower 

ureteral stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy //Asian J. Surg. — 2010 
Jan. — Vol. 33, N 1. — P. 37–41.

88.  Zhu Y., Duij vesz D., Rovers M.M. et al. Alpha-blockers to assist stone 

clearance after extracorporealshock wave lithotripsy: a meta-analysis //BJU Int. — 
2010 Jul. — Vol. 106, N 2. — P. 256–261.

89.  Hussein M.M. Does tamsulosin increase stone clearance after shockwave 

lithotripsy of renal stones? A prospective, randomized controlled study //Scand. J. 
Urol. Nephrol. — 2010 Feb. — Vol. 44, N 1. — P. 27–31.

90. Singh S.K., Pawar D.S., Griwan M.S. et al. Role of tamsulosin in clearance 

of upper ureteral calculi after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a randomized 
controlled trial //Urol. J. — 2011 Winter. — Vol. 8, N 1. — P. 14–20.

91.  Zheng S., Liu L.R., Yuan H.C. et al. Tamsulosin as adjunctive treatment 

after shockwave lithotripsy in patients with upper urinary tract stones: a systematic 
review and meta-analysis //Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. — 2010 Dec. — Vol. 44, N 
6. — P. 425–432.

128

Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации

92. Falahatkar S., Khosropanah I., Vajary A.D. et al. Is there a role for tamsulosin 

after shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of renal and ureteral calculi? //J. 
Endourol. — 2011 Mar. — Vol. 25, N 3. — P. 495–498.

93.  John T.T., Razdan S. Adjunctive tamsulosin improves stone free rate after 

ureteroscopic lithotripsy of large renal and ureteric calculi: a prospective randomized 
study //Urology. — 2010 May. — Vol. 75, N 5. — P. 1040–1042.

94. Honda M., Yamamoto K., Momohara C. et al. Oral chemolysis of uric acid 

stones //Hinyokika Kiyo. — 2003 Jun. — Vol. 49, N 6. — P. 307–310. [Article in 
Japanese]

95. Chugtai M.N., Khan F.A., Kaleem M. et al. Management of uric acid stone //J. 

Pak. Med. Assoc. — 1992 Jul. — Vol. 42, N 7. — P. 153–155.

96. Rodman J.S. Intermittent versus continuous alkaline therapy for Uric acid 

stones and urethral stones of uncertain composition //Urology. — 2002 Sep. — 
Vol. 60, N 3. — P. 378–382.

97. Becker A. Uric acid stones //Nephrology. — 2007. — Vol. 12, suppl. 1. — 

P. S21–S25.

98. Weirich W., Frohneberg D., Ackermann D. et al. Practical experiences with 

antegrade local chemolysis of struvite/apatite, uric acid and cystine calculi in the 
kidney //Urologe A. — 1984 Mar. — Vol. 23, N 2. — P. 95–98.

99.  El-Gamal O., El-Bendary M., Ragab M. et al. Role of combined use of 

potassium citrate and tamsulosin in the management of uric acid distal ureteral 
calculi //Urol. Res. — 2012 Jun. — Vol. 40, N 3. — P. 219–224.

100. Argyropoulos A.N., Tolley D.A. Evaluation of outcome following lithotripsy //

Curr. Opin. Urol. — 2010 Mar. — Vol. 20, N 2. — P. 154–158.

101.  Srisubat A., Potisat S., Lojanapiwat B. et al. Extracorporeal shock wave 

lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde 
intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones //Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. — 
2009 Oct. — Vol. 7, Issue 4:CD007044.

102.  Sahinkanat T., Ekerbicer H., Onal B. et al. Evaluation of the eff ects  of 

relationships between main spatial lower pole calyceal anatomic factors on the 
success of shock-wave lithotripsy in patients with lower pole kidney stones //
Urology. — 2008. — Vol. 71, N 5. — P. 801–805.

103.  Danuser H., Muller R., Descoeudres B. et al. Extracorporeal shock wave 

lithotripsy of lower calyx calculi: how much is treatment outcome infl uenced by 
the anatomy of the collecting system? //Eur. Urol. — 2007 Aug. — Vol. 52, N 2. — 
P. 539–546.

104.  Preminger G.M. Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave 

lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus fl exible ureteroscopy //
Urol. Res. — 2006 Apr. — Vol. 34, N 2. — P. 108–111.

105. Pearle M.S., Lingeman J.E., Leveillee R. et al. Prospective, randomized trial 

comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 
cm or less //J. Urol. — 2005 Jun. — Vol. 173, N 6. — P. 2005–2009.

106. Albanis S., Ather H.M., Papatsoris A.G. et al. Inversion, hydration and diuresis 

during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: does it improve the stone-free rate for 
lower pole stone clearance? //Urol. Int. — 2009. — Vol. 83, N 2. — P. 211–216.

107.  Kosar A., Ozturk A., Serel T.A. et al. Eff ect of vibration massage therapy 

after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with lower caliceal stones //J. 
Endourol. — 1999 Dec. — Vol. 13, N 10. — P. 705–797.

129

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь 

108. Aboumarzouk O.M., Monga M., Kata S.G. et al. Flexible ureteroscopy and 

laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis //J. En-
dourol. — 2012 Oct. — Vol. 26, N 10. — P. 1257–1263.

109. Akar E.C., Knudsen B.E. Flexible Ureteroscopy Versus Percutaneous Neph-

rolithotomy as Primary Treatment for Renal Stones 2 cm or Greater. — Columbus, 
USA: Department of Urology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 2013.

110. Hyams E.S., Munver R., Bird V.G., Uberoi J. et al. Flexible ureterorenos-

copy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens 
that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience //J. Endourol. — 2010. — 
Vol. 24. — P. 1583–1588.

111.  Hyams E.S., Shah O. Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy versus fl exible 

ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy: cost and outcomes analysis //J. Urol. — 
2009. — Vol. 182. — P. 1012–1017.

112. Breda A., Ogunyemi O., Leppert J.T., Lam J.S. et al. Flexible ureteroscopy 

and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater — is this the new 
frontier? //J. Urol. — 2008. — Vol. 179. — P. 981–984.

113. Takazawa R., Kitayama  S., Tsujoo T. Successful outcome of fl exible ure-

teroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2 cm or greater //Int. J. 
Urol. — 2012. — Vol. 19. — P. 264–267.

114. Ricchiuti D.J., Smaldone M.C., Jacobs B.L., Smaldone A.M. et al. Staged ret-

rograde endoscopic lithotripsy as alternative to PCNL in select patients with large 
renal calculi //J. Endourol. — 2007. — Vol. 21. — P. 1421–1424.

115.  De S. et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal sur-

gery: a systematic review and meta-analysis //Eur. Urol. — 2015.

116. Handa R.K., Bailey M.R., Paun M. et al. Pretreatment with low-energy 

shock waves induces renal vasoconstriction during standard shock wave lithotripsy 
(SWL): a treatment protocol known to reduce SWL-induced renal injury //BJU 
Int. — 2009 May. — Vol. 103, N 9. — P. 1270–1274.

117.  Manikandan R., Gall Z., Gunendran T. et al. Do anatomic factors pose a 

signifi cant risk in the formation of lower pole stones? //Urology. — 2007 Apr. — 
Vol. 69, N 4. — P. 620–624.

118. Juan Y.S., Chuang S.M., Wu W.J. et al. Impact of lower pole anatomy on 

stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy //Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. — 2005 
Aug. — Vol. 21, N 8. — P. 358–364.

119. Ruggera L., Beltrami P., Ballario R. et al. Impact of anatomical pielocaliceal 

topography in the treatment of renal lower calyces stones with extracorporeal shock 
wave lithotripsy //Int. J. Urol. — 2005 Jun. — Vol. 12, N 6. — P. 525–532.

120. Knoll T., Musial A., Trojan L. et al. Measurement of renal anatomy for pre-

diction of lower-pole caliceal stone clearance: reproducibility of diff erent param-
eters //J. Endourol. — 2003 Sep. — Vol. 17, N 7. — P. 447–451.

121.  El-Nahas A., Ibrahim H., Youssef R., Sheir K. Flexible ureterorenoscopy 

versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 
10–20 mm //BJU Int. — 2012. — Vol. 110, N 6. — P. 898–902.

122. Hussain M., Acher P., Penev B. et al. Redefi ning the limits of fl exible ureter-

orenoscopy //J. Endourol. — 2011 Jan. — Vol. 25, N 1. — P. 45–49.

123. Wendt-Nordahl G., Mut T., Krombach P. et al. Do new generation fl exible 

ureterorenoscopes off er a higher treatment success than their predecessors? //Urol. 
Res. — 2011 Jun. — Vol. 39, N 3. — P. 185–188.

130

Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации

124. Prabhakar M. Retrograde ureteroscopic intrarenal surgery for large (1.6–3.5 

cm) upper ureteric/renal calculus //Indian J. Urol. — 2010 Jan–Mar. — Vol. 26, 
N 1. — P. 46–49.

125. Riley J.M., Stearman L., Troxel S. Retrograde ureteroscopy for renal stones 

larger than 2.5 cm //J. Endourol. — 2009 Sep. — Vol. 23, N 9. — P. 1395–1398.

126.  Aboumarzouk O.M., Kata S.G., Keeley F.X. et al. Extracorporeal shock 

wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi //
Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. — 2012. — Issue 5:CD006029.

127.  Chang C.H., Wang C.J., Huang S.W. Totally tubeless percutaneous 

nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized controlled study //Urol. Res. — 2011 
Dec. — Vol. 39, N 6. — P. 459–465.

128. Agarwal M., Agrawal M.S., Jaiswal A. et al. Safety and effi

  cacy of ultrasonog-

raphy as an adjunct to fl uoroscopy for renal access in percutaneous nephrolitho-
tomy (PCNL) //BJU Int. — 2011 Oct. — Vol. 108, N 8. — P. 1346–1349.

129.  Deem S., Defade B., Modak A. et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy 

versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for moderate sized kidney stones //
Urology. — 2011 Oct. — Vol. 78, N 4. — P. 739–743.

130.  Tiselius H.G. How effi

  cient is extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with 

modern lithotripters for removal of ureteral stones? //J. Endourol. — 2008 Feb. — 
Vol. 22, N 2. — P. 249–255.

131. Elashry O.M., Elgamasy A.K., Sabaa M.A. et al. Ureteroscopic management 

of lower ureteric calculi: a 15-year single-centre experience //BJU Int. — 2008 
Sep. — Vol. 102, N 8. — P. 1010–1017.

132.  Fuganti P.E., Pires S., Branco R. et al. Predictive factors for 

intraoperative complications in semirigid ureteroscopy: analysis of 1235 ballistic 
ureterolithotripsies //Urology. — 2008 Oct. — Vol. 72, N 4. — P. 770–774.

133.  Tugcu V., Tasci A.I., Ozbek E. et al. Does stone dimension aff ect  the 

eff ectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones? //Int. Urol. 
Nephrol. — 2008. — Vol. 40, N 2. — P. 269–275.

134. Hong Y.K., Park D.S. Ureteroscopic lithotripsy using Swiss Lithoclast for 

treatment of ureteral calculi:12-years experience //J. Korean Med. Sci. — 2009 
Aug. — Vol. 24, N 4. — P. 690–694.

135. Kumar V., Ahlawat R., Banjeree G.K. et al. Percutaneous ureterolitholapaxy: 

the best bet to clear large bulk impacted upper ureteral calculi //Arch. EsP. Urol. — 
1996 Jan–Feb. — Vol. 49, N 1. — P. 86–91.

136.  Goel R., Aron M., Kesarwani P.K. et al. Percutaneous antegrade removal 

of impacted upper-ureteral calculi: still the treatment of choice in developing 
countries //J. Endourol. — 2005 Jan–Feb. — Vol. 19, N 1. — P. 54–57.

137. Berczi C., Flasko T., Lorincz L. et al. Results of percutaneous endoscopic 

ureterolithotomy compared to that of ureteroscopy //J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. 
Tech. A. — 2007 Jun. — Vol. 17, N 3. — P. 285–289.

138. Sun X., Xia S., Lu J. et al. Treatment of Large Impacted Proximal Ureteral 

Stones: Randomized Comparison of Percutaneous Antegrade Ureterolithotripsy 
versus Retrograde Ureterolithotripsy //J. Endourol. — 2008 May. — Vol. 22, N 
5. — P. 913–917.

139.  El-Nahas A.R., Eraky I., el-Assmy A.M. et al. Percutaneous treatment of 

large upper tract stones after urinary diversion //Urology. — 2006 Sep. — Vol. 68, 
N 3. — P. 500–504.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

содержание   ..  14  15  16  17   ..