Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации (2016 год) - часть 17

 

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

 

поиск по сайту            правообладателям  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

содержание   ..  15  16  17  18   ..

 

 

Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации (2016 год) - часть 17

 

 

131

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь 

140.  El-Assmy A., El-Nahas A.R., Mohsen T. et al. Extracorporeal shock wave 

lithotripsy of upper urinary tract calculi in patients with cystectomy and urinary 
diversion //Urology. — 2005 Sep. — Vol. 66, N 3. — P. 510–513.

141. Rhee B.K., Bretan P.N. Jr, Stoller M.L. Urolithiasis in renal and combined 

pancreas/renal transplant recipients //J. Urol. — 1999 May. — Vol. 161, N 5. — 
P. 1458–1462.

142. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8678608.
143. Gravas S., Montanari E., Geavlete P., Onal B., Skolarikos A. et al. Postopera-

tive infection rates in low risk patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy 
with and without antibiotic prophylaxis: a matched case control study //J. Urol. — 
2012 Sep. — Vol. 188, N 3. — P. 843–847.

144. Watterson J.D., Girvan A.R., Cook A.J. et al. Safety and effi

  cacy of holmium: 

YAG laser lithotripsy in patients with bleeding diatheses //J. Urol. — 2002 Aug. — 
Vol. 168, N 2. — P. 442–445.

145. Kuo R.L., Aslan P., Fitzgerald K.B. et al. Use of ureteroscopy and holmium: 

YAG laser in patients with bleeding diatheses //Urology. — 1998 Oct. — Vol. 52, 
N 4. — P. 609–613.

146.  Kufer R., Thamasett S., Volkmer B. et al. New-generation lithotripters for 

treatment of patients with implantable cardioverter defi brillator:  experimental 
approach and review of literature //J. Endourol. — 2001 Jun. — Vol. 15, N 5. — 
P. 479–484.

147. Rassweiler J.J., Renner C., Chaussy C. et al. Treatment of renal stones by ex-

tracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: an update //Eur. Urol. — 2001 Feb. — Vol. 39, 
N 2. — P. 187–199.

148. Klingler H.C., Kramer G., Lodde M. et al. Stone treatment and coagulopa-

thy //Eur. Urol. — 2003 Jan. — Vol. 43, N 1. — P. 75–79.

149. Fischer C., Wohrle J., Pastor J. et al. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy 

induced ultrastructural changes to the renal parenchyma under aspirin use. Elec-
tron microscopic fi ndings in the rat kidney //Urologe A. — 2007 Feb. — Vol. 46, 
N 2. — P. 150–155.

150. Becopoulos T., Karayannis A., Mandalaki T. et al. Extracorporeal lithotripsy 

in patients with hemophilia //Eur. Urol. — 1988. — Vol. 14, N 4. — P. 343–345.

151.  Ruiz Marcellan F.J., Mauri Cunill A., Cabre Fabre P. et al. Extracorporeal 

shockwave lithotripsy in patients with coagulation disorders //Arch. EsP. Urol. — 
1992 Mar. — Vol. 45, N 2. — P. 135–137.

152. Ishikawa J., Okamoto M., Higashi Y. et al. Extracorporeal shock wave litho-

tripsy in von Willebrand’s disease //Int. J. Urol. — 1996 Jan. — Vol. 3, N 1. — 
P. 58–60.

153. Coptcoat M.J., Webb D.R., Kellet M.J. et al. The steinstrasse: a legacy of ex-

tracorporeal lithotripsy? //Eur. Urol. — 1988. — Vol. 14, N 2. — P. 93–95.

154. Resim S., Ekerbicer H.C., Ciftci A. Role of tamsulosin in treatment of pa-

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

155. Sayed M.A., el-Taher A.M., Aboul-Ella H.A. et al. Steinstrasse after extra-

corporeal shockwave lithotripsy: aetiology, prevention and management //BJU 
Int. — 2001 Nov. — Vol. 88, N 7. — P. 675–678.

156. Goyal R., Dubey D., Khurana N. et al. Does the type of steinstrasse predict 

the outcome of expectant therapy? //Indian J. Urol. — 2006. — Vol. 22, N 2. — 
P. 135–138.

132

Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации

157. Rabbani S.M. Treatment of steinstrasse by transureteral lithotripsy //Urol. 

J. — 2008 Spring. — Vol. 5, N 2. — P. 89–93.

158. Al-Awadi K.A., Abdul Halim H., Kehinde E.O. et al. Steinstrasse: a comparison 

of incidence with and without J stenting and the eff ect of J stenting on subsequent 
management //BJU Int. — 1999 Oct. — Vol. 84, N 6. — P. 618–621.

159.  Madbouly K., Sheir K.Z., Elsobky E. et al. Risk factors for the formation 

of a steinstrasse after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a statistical model //J. 
Urol. — 2002 Mar. — Vol. 167, N 3. — P. 1239–1242.

160. Hardy M.R., McLeod D.G. Silent renal obstruction with severe functional 

loss after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a report of 2 cases //J. Urol. — 1987 
Jan. — Vol. 137, N 1. — P. 91–92.

161. Wen C.C., Nakada S.Y. Treatment selection and outcomes: renal calculi //

Urol. Clin. North Am. — 2007 Aug. — Vol. 34, N 3. — P. 409–419.

162. Miller N.L., Lingeman J.E. Management of kidney stones //BMJ. — 2007 

Mar. — Vol. 334, N 7591. — P. 468–472.

163.  Galvin D.J., Pearle M.S. The contemporary management of renal and 

ureteric calculi //BJU Int. — 2006 Dec. — Vol. 98, N 6. — P. 1283–1288.

164. Ohmori K., Matsuda T., Horii Y. et al. Eff ects of shock waves on the mouse 

fetus //J. Urol. — 1994 Jan. — Vol. 151, N 1. — P. 255–258.

165. Streem S.B., Yost A. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with 

bleeding diatheses //J. Urol. — 1990 Dec. — Vol. 144, N 6. — P. 1347–1348.

166. Carey S.W., Streem S.B. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for patients 

with calcifi ed ipsilateral renalarterial or abdominal aortic aneurysms //J. Urol. — 
1992 Jul. — Vol. 148, N 1. — P. 18–20.

167.  Musa A.A. Use of double-J stents prior to extracorporeal shock wave 

lithotripsy is not benefi cial: results of a prospective randomized study //Int. Urol. 
Nephrol. — 2008. — Vol. 40, N 1. — P. 19–22.

168. Mohayuddin N., Malik H.A., Hussain M. et al. The outcome of extracorporeal 

shockwave lithotripsy for renal pelvic stone with and without JJ stent — a comparative 
study //J. Pak. Med. Assoc. — 2009 Mar. — Vol. 59, N 3. — P. 143–146.

169.  Ghoneim I.A., El-Ghoneimy M.N., El-Naggar A.E. et al. Extracorporeal 

shock wave lithotripsy in impacted upper ureteral stones: a prospective randomized 
comparison between stented and non-stented techniques //Urology. — 2010 
Jan. — Vol. 75, N 1. — P. 45–50.

170.  Platonov M.A., Gillis A.M., Kavanagh K.M. Pacemakers, implantable 

cardioverter/defi brillators, and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: evidence-
based guidelines for the modern era //J. Endourol. — 2008 Feb. — Vol. 22, N 2. — 
P. 243–247.

171. Pishchalnikov Y.A., McAteer J.A., Williams J.C. Jr. et al. Why stones break 

better at slow shockwave rates than at fast rates: in vitro study with a research 
electrohydraulic lithotripter //J. Endourol. — 2006 Aug. — Vol. 20, N 8. — P. 537–
541.

172. Connors B.A., Evan A.P., Blomgren P.M. et al. Extracorporeal shock wave 

lithotripsy at 60 shock waves/min reduces renal injury in a porcine model //BJU 
Int. — 2009 Oct. — Vol. 104, N 7. — P. 1004–1008.

173. Ng C.F., Lo A.K., Lee K.W. et al. A prospective, randomized study of the 

clinical eff ects of shock wave delivery for unilateral kidney stones: 60 versus 120 
shocks per minute //J. Urol. — 2012 Sep. — Vol. 188, N 3. — P. 837–842.

133

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь 

174. Moon K.B., Lim G.S., Hwang J.S. et al. Optimal shock wave rate for shock 

wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a prospective randomized study //Korean 
J. Urol. — 2012 Nov. — Vol. 53, N 11. — P. 790–794.

175. Yilmaz E., Batislam E., Basar M. et al. Optimal frequency in extracorporeal 

shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study //Urology. — 2005 Dec. — 
Vol. 66, N 6. — P. 1160–1164.

176.  Semins M.J., Trock B.J., Matlaga B.R. The eff ect of shock wave rate on 

the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy: a meta-analysis //J. Urol. — 2008 Jan. — 
Vol. 179, N 1. — P. 194–197; discussion 197.

177.  Connors B.A., Evan A.P., Blomgren P.M. et al. Eff ect of initial shock wave 

voltage on shock wave lithotripsy-induced lesion size during step-wise voltage 
ramping //BJU Int. — 2009 Jan. — Vol. 103, N 1. — P. 104–107.

178.  Handa R.K., McAteer J.A., Connors B.A. et al. Optimising an escalating 

shockwave amplitude treatment strategy to protect the kidney from injury during 
shockwave lithotripsy //BJU Int. — 2012 Dec. — Vol. 110, N 11. — P. E1041–
E1047.

179. Maloney M.E., Marguet C.G., Zhou Y. et al. Progressive increase of litho-

tripter output produces better in-vivo stone comminution //J. Endourol. — 2006 
Sep. — Vol. 20, N 9. — P. 603–606.

180. Demirci D., Sofi kerim M., Yalcin E. et al. Comparison of conventional and 

step-wise shockwave lithotripsy in management of urinary calculi //J. Endourol. — 
2007 Dec. — Vol. 21, N 12. — P. 1407–1410.

181. Honey R.J., Ray A.A., Ghiculete D. et al. Shock wave lithotripsy: a random-

ized, double-blind trial tocompare immediate versus delayed voltage escalation //
Urology. — 2010 Jan. — Vol. 75, N 1. — P. 38–43.

182.  Neucks J.S., Pishchalnikov Y.A., Zancanaro A.J. et al. Improved acoustic 

coupling for shock wave lithotripsy //Urol. Res. — 2008 Feb. — Vol. 36, N 1. — 
P. 61–66.

183. Logarakis N.F., Jewett M.A., Luymes J. et al. Variation in clinical outcome fol-

lowing shock wave lithotripsy //J. Urol. — 2000 Mar. — Vol. 163, N 3. — P. 721–725.

184. Eichel L., Batzold P., Erturk E. Operator experience and adequate anesthe-

sia improve treatmentoutcome with third-generation lithotripters //J. Endourol. — 
2001 Sep. — Vol. 15, N 7. — P. 671–673.

185.  Sorensen C., Chandhoke P., Moore M. et al. Comparison of intravenous 

sedation versus general anesthesia on the effi

  cacy of the Doli 50 lithotriptor //J. 

Urol. — 2002 Jul. — Vol. 168, N 1. — P. 35–37.

186. Cleveland R.O., Anglade R., Babayan R.K. Eff ect of stone motion on in vitro 

comminution effi

  ciency of Storz Modulith SLX //J. Endourol. — 2004 Sep. — 

Vol. 18, N 7. — P. 629–633.

187. Bierkens A.F., Hendrikx A.J., Ezz el Din K.E. et al. The value of antibiotic 

prophylaxis during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the prevention of uri-
nary tract infections in patients with urine proven sterile prior to treatment //Eur. 
Urol. — 1997. — Vol. 31, N 1. — P. 30–35.

188. Deliveliotis C., Giftopoulos A., Koutsokalis G. et al. The necessity of prophy-

lactic antibiotics during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy //Int. Urol. Neph-
rol. — 1997. — Vol. 29, N 5. — P. 517–521.

189.  Honey R.J., Ordon M., Ghiculete D. et al. A prospective study examining 

the incidence of bacteriuria and urinary tract infection after shock wave lithotripsy 

134

Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации

with targeted antibiotic prophylaxis //J. Urol. — 2013 Jun. — Vol. 189, N 6. — 
P. 2112–2117.

190.  Lu Y., Tianyong F., Ping H. et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for shock wave 

lithotripsy in patients with sterile urine before treatment may be unnecessary: a 
systematic review and meta-analysis //J. Urol. — 2012 Aug. — Vol. 188, N 2. — 
P. 441–448.

191. Bhagat S.K., Chacko N.K., Kekre N.S. et al. Is there a role for tamsulosin 

in shock wave lithotripsy for renal and ureteral calculi? //J. Urol. — 2007 Jun. — 
Vol. 177, N 6. — P. 2185–2188.

192.  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.

193.  Maker V., Layke J. Gastrointestinal injury secondary to extracorporeal 

shock wave lithotripsy: a review of the literature since its inception //J. Am. Coll. 
Surg. — 2004 Jan. — Vol. 198, N 1. — P. 128–135.

194.  Kim T.B., Park H.K., Lee K.Y. et al. Life-threatening complication after 

extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for a renal stone: a hepatic subcapsular 
hematoma //Korean J. Urol. — 2010 Mar. — Vol. 51, N 3. — P. 212–215.

195.  Ng C.F., Law V.T., Chiu P.K. et al. Hepatic haematoma after shockwave 

lithotripsy for renal stones //Urol. Res. — 2012 Dec. — Vol. 40, N 6. — P. 785–789.

196. Zekey F.Senkul T., Ates F., Soydan H. et al. Evaluation of the impact of 

shock wave lithotripsy on kidneys using a new marker: how do neutrophil gelatinese-
associated lypocalin values change after shock wave lithotripsy? //Urology. — 2012 
Aug. — Vol. 80, N 2. — P. 267–272.

197. Dickstein R.J., Kreshover J.E., Babayan R.K. et al. Is a safety wire necessary 

during routine fl exible ureteroscopy? //J. Endourol. — 2010 Oct. — Vol. 24, N 
10. — P. 1589–1592.

198. Eandi J.A., Hu B., Low R.K. Evaluation of the impact and need for use of 

a safety guidewire during ureteroscopy //J. Endourol. — 2008 Aug. — Vol. 22, N 
8. — P. 1653–1658.

199. Ng Y.H., Somani B.K., Dennison A. et al. Irrigant fl ow and intrarenal pressure 

during fl exible ureteroscopy: the eff ect of diff erent access sheaths, working channel 
instruments, and hydrostatic pressure //J. Endourol. 2010 Dec. — Vol. 24, N 12. — 
P. 1915–1920.

200. Humphreys M.R., Miller N.L., Williams J.C. Jr et al. A new world revealed: 

early experience with digital ureteroscopy //J. Urol. — 2008 Mar. — Vol. 179, N 
3. — P. 970–975.

201. Gupta P.K. Is the holmium: YAG laser the best intracorporeal lithotripter 

for the ureter? A 3-year retrospective study //J. Endourol. — 2007 Mar. — Vol. 21, 
N 3. — P. 305–309.

202.  Ahmed M., Pedro R.N., Kieley S. et al. Systematic evaluation of ureteral 

occlusion devices: insertion, deployment, stone migration, and extraction //
Urology. — 2009 May. — Vol. 73, N 5. — P. 976–980.

203. Rubenstein R.A., Zhao L.C., Loeb S. et al. Prestenting improves ureteroscopic 

stone-free rates //J. Endourol. — 2007 Nov. — Vol. 21, N 11. — P. 1277–1280.

204. Song T., Liao B., Zheng S., Wei Q. Meta-analysis of postoperatively stenting 

or not in patients underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy //Urol. Res. — 2012 Feb. — 
Vol. 40, N 1. — P. 67–77.

135

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь 

205.  Nabi G., Cook J., N’Dow J., McClinton S. Outcomes of stenting after 

uncomplicated ureteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis //BMJ. — 2007 
Mar. — Vol. 334, N 7593. — P. 572.

206. Moon T.D. Ureteral stenting — an obsolete procedure? //J. Urol. — 2002 

May. — Vol. 167, N 5. — P. 1984.

207. Geavlete P., Georgescu D., Nita G. et al. Complications of 2735 retrograde 

semirigid ureteroscopyprocedures: a single-center experience //J. Endourol. — 
2006 Mar. — Vol. 20, N 3. — P. 179–185.

208. de la Rosette J.J.M.C.H., Laguna M.P., Rassweiler J.J., Conort P. Training in 

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy — A Critical Review //Eur. Urol. — 2008 Nov. — 
Vol. 54, N 5. — P. 994–1003.

209.  Allen D., O’Brien T., Tiptaft R. Glass J. Defi ning the learning curve for 

percutaneous nephrolithotomy //J. Endourol. — 2005. — Vol. 19, N 3. — P. 279–
282.

210.  Tanriverdi O., Boylu U., Kendirci M., Kadihasanoglu M. The learning 

curve in the training of percutaneous nephrolithotomy //Eur. Urol. — 2007 Jul. — 
Vol. 52, N 1. — P. 206–211.

211. Andonian S., Scoff one C.M., Louie M.K. et al. Does imaging modality used 

for percutaneous renalaccess make a diff erence? A matched case analysis //J. 
Endourol. — 2013 Jan. — Vol. 27, N 1. — P. 24–28.

212. Hopper K.D., Sherman J.L., Luethke J.M., Ghaed N. The retrorenal colon in 

the supine and prone patient //Radiology. — 1987 Feb. — Vol. 162, N 2. — 
P. 443.

213. Sherman J.L., Hopper K.D., Greene A.J., Johns T.T. The retrorenal colon 

on computed tomography: a normal variant //J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. — 1985 
Mar–Apr. — Vol. 9, N 2. — P. 339–341.

214.  De Sio M., Autorino R., Quarto G. et al. Modifi ed supine versus prone 

position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones treatable with a single 
percutaneous access: a prospectiverandomized trial //Eur. Urol. — 2008. — Vol. 54, 
N 1. — P. 196–202.

215.  Valdivia J.G., Scarpa R.M., Duvdevani M. et al. Supine versus prone 

position during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a report from the clinical research 
offi

    ce of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study //J. 

Endourol. — 2011 Oct. — Vol. 25, N 10. — P. 1619–1625.

216.  El-Nahas A.R., Shokeir A.A., El-Assmy A.M. et al. Colonic perforation 

during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: study of risk factors //Urology. — 2006 
May. — Vol. 67, N 5. — P. 937–941.

217. Osman M., Wendt-Nordahl G., Heger K. et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy 

with ultrasonographyguided renal access: experience from over 300 cases //BJU 
Int. — 2005 Oct. — Vol. 96, N 6. — P. 875–878.

218. Jessen J.P., Honeck P., Knoll T. et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under 

combined sonographic/radiologic guided puncture: results of a learning curve using 
the modifi ed Clavien grading system //World J. Urol. — 2013 Dec. — Vol. 31, N 
6. — P. 1599–1603.

219. Lopes T., Sangam K., Alken P., Barroilhet B.S. et al. The Clinical Research 

Offi

    ce of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: 

tract dilation comparisons in 5537 patients //J. Endourol. — 2011. — Vol. 25, N 
5. — P. 755–762.

136

Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации

220. Cormio L., Preminger G., Saussine C., Buchholz N.P. et al. Nephrostomy in 

percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): does size matter? Results from the Global 
PCNL study from the Clinical Research Offi

  ce Endourology Society //World J. 

Urol. — 2013. — Vol. 31, N 6. — P. 1563–1568.

221. Singh I., Singh A., Mittal G. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it 

really less morbid? //J. Endourol. — 2008 Mar. — Vol. 22, N 3. — P. 427–434.

222.  Kara C., Resorlu B., Bayindir M. et al. A randomized comparison of 

totally tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients //
Urology. — 2010 Aug. — Vol. 76, N 2. — P. 289–293.

223.  Istanbulluoglu M.O., Ozturk B., Gonen M. et al. Eff ectiveness of totally 

tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients: a prospective 
randomized study //Int. Urol. Nephrol. — 2009. — Vol. 41, N 3. — P. 541–545.

224.  Gonen M., Cicek T., Ozkardes H. Tubeless and stentless percutaneous 

nephrolithotomy in patients requiring supracostal access //Urol. Int. — 2009. — 
Vol. 82, N 4. — P. 440–443.

225.  Amer Kamran T., Ahmed K., Bultitude M., Khan S. et al. Standard versus 

tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review //Urol. Int. — 
2012. — Vol. 88. — P. 373–382. 

226. Wang J., Zhao C., Zhang C., Fan X. et al. Tubeless vs standard percutaneous 

nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis //BJU Int. — 2012 Mar. — Vol. 109, N 6. — 
P. 918–924.

227. Zhong Q., Zheng C., Zhou Y., Piao Y. et al. Total tubeless versus standard 

percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A Meta-Analysis //J. Endourol. 2013. — Vol. 27. — 
P. 420–426.

228.  Cogain M.R., Krambeck A.E. Advances in tubeless percutaneous 

nephrolithotomy and patient selection: an update //Curr. Urol. Rep. — 2013 
Apr. — Vol. 14, N 2. — P. 130–137.

229.  Nerli R.B., Reddy M.N., Devaraju S., Hiremath M.B. Percutaneous 

nephrolithotomy in patients on chronic anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy //
Chonnam. Med. J. — 2012. — Vol. 48.

230. de la Rosette J., Assimos D., Desai M., Gutierrez J. et al.; CROES PCNL Study 

GrouP. The Clinical Research Offi

  ce of the Endourological Society Percutaneous 

Nephrolithotomy Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 
patients //J. Endourol. — 2011 Jan. — Vol. 25, N 1. — P. 11–17.

231. Gutierrez G., Smith A., Geavlete P., Shah H. et al. Urinary tract infections 

and post-operative fever in percutaneous nephrolithotomy //World J. Urol. — 
2013. — Vol. 31, N 5. — P. 1135–1140.

232. Gravas S., Montanari E., Geavlete P., Onal B. et al. Post-operative infection 

rates in low risk PCNL patients with and without antibiotic prophylaxis: A Matched 
Case Control Study //J. Urol. — 2012. — Vol. 188, N 3. — P. 843–847.

233. Zeng G. et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for simple 

and complex renal caliceal stones: a comparative analysis of more than 10 000 
cases //J. Endourol. — 2013. — Vol. 27, N 10. — P. 1203–1208.

234. Abdelhafez M.F. et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy 

(PCNL) as an eff ective and safe procedure for large renal stones //BJU Int. — 
2012. — Vol. 110, N 11. — Pt C. — P. E1022–E1026.

235.  Desai J., Solanki R. Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): 

one more armamentarium //BJU Int. — 2013. — Vol. 112, N 7. — P. 1046–1049.

137

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь 

236. Assimos D.G., Boyce W.H., Harrison L.H. et al. The role of open stone surgery 

since extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy //J. Urol. — 1989 Aug. — Vol. 142, N 
2. — Pt 1. — P. 263–267.

237. Segura J.W. Current surgical approaches to nephrolithiasis //Endocrinol. 

Metab. Clin. North Am. — 1990 Dec. — Vol. 19, N 4. — P. 919–935.

238. Honeck P., Wendt-Nordahl G., Krombach P. et al. Does open stone surgery 

still play a role in the treatment of urolithiasis? Data of a primary urolithiasis 
center //J. Endourol. — 2009 Jul. — Vol. 23, N 7. — P. 1209–1212.

239. Bichler K.H., Lahme S., Strohmaier W.L. Indications for open stone removal 

of urinary calculi //Urol. Int. — 1997. — Vol. 59, N 2. — P. 102–108.

240. Paik M.L., Resnick M.I. Is there a role for open stone surgery? //Urol. Clin. 

North Am. — 2000 May. — Vol. 27, N 2. — P. 323–331.

241. Matlaga B.R., Assimos D.G. Changing indications of open stone surgery //

Urology. — 2002 Apr. — Vol. 59, N 4. — P. 490–493; discussion 493–494.

242.  Ansari M.S., Gupta N.P. Impact of socioeconomic status in etiology and 

management of urinary stonedisease //Urol. Int. — 2003. — Vol. 70, N 4. — 
P. 255–261.

243.  Alivizatos G., Skolarikos A. Is there still a role for open surgery in the 

management of renal stones? //Curr. Opin. Urol. — 2006 Mar. — Vol. 16, N 2. — 
P. 106–111.

244. Kerbl K., Rehman J., Landman J. et al. Current management of urolithiasis: 

Progress or regress? //J. Endourol. — 2002 Jun. — Vol. 16, N 5. — P. 281–288.

245. Preminger G.M., Assimos D.G., Lingeman J.E. et al. Chapter 1: AUA guideline 

on management ofstaghorn calculi: Diagnosis and treatment recommendations //J. 
Urol. — 2005 Jun. — Vol. 173, N 6. — P. 1991–2000.

246.  Kane C.J., Bolton D.M., Stoller M.L. Current indications for open stone 

surgery in an endourology center //Urology. — 1995 Feb. — Vol. 45, N 2. — 
P. 218–221.

247. Sy F.Y., Wong M.Y., Foo K.T. Current indications for open stone surgery in Sin-

gapore //Ann. Acad. Med. Singapore. — 1999 Mar. — Vol. 28, N 2. — P. 241–244.

248.  Goel A., Hemal A.K. Upper and mid-ureteric stones: a prospective 

unrandomized comparison of retroperitoneoscopic and open ureterolithotomy //
BJU Int. — 2001 Nov. — Vol. 88, N 7. — P. 679–682.

249.  Skrepetis K., Doumas K., Siafakas I. et al. Laparoscopy versus open 

ureterolithomy. A comparative study // Eur. Urol. — 2001. — Vol. 40, N 1. — 
P. 32-37.

250. Al-Hunayan A., Khalil M., Hassabo M. et al. Management of solitary renal 

pelvic stone: laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous 
nephrolithotomy //J. Endourol. — 2011 Jun. — Vol. 25, N 6. — P. 975–978.

251. Skolarikos A., Papatsoris A.G., Albanis S. et al. Laparoscopic urinary stone 

surgery: an updated evidence based review //Urol. Res. — 2010 Oct. — Vol. 38, N 
5. — P. 337–344.

252. Al-Hunayan A., Khalil M., Hassabo M. et al. Management of solitary renal 

pelvic stone: laparoscopicretroperitoneal pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous 
nephrolithotomy //J. Endourol. — 2011 Jun. — Vol. 25, N 6. — P. 975–978.

253.  Giedelman C., Arriaga J., Carmona O. et al. Laparoscopic anatrophic 

nephrolithotomy: developments of the technique in the era of minimally invasive 
surgery //J. Endourol. — 2012 May. — Vol. 26, N 5. — P. 444–450.

138

Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации

254.  Zhou L., Xuan Q., Wu B. et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic anatrophic 

nephrolithotomy for large staghorn calculi //Int. J. Urol. — 2011 Feb. — Vol. 18, 
N 2. — P. 126–129.

255. Fan T., Xian P., Yang L. et al. Experience and learning curve of retroperito-

neal laparoscopicureterolithotomy for upper ureteral calculi //J. Endourol. — 2009 
Nov. — Vol. 23, N 11. — P. 1867–1870.

256. Khaladkar S., Modi J., Bhansali M. et al. Which is the best option to treat 

large (> 1.5 cm) miduretericcalculi? //J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A. — 2009 
Aug. — Vol. 19, N 4. — P. 501–504.

257. Jeong B.C., Park H.K., Byeon S.S. et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ure-

terolithotomy for upper ureter stones //J. Korean Med. Sci. — 2006 Jun. — Vol. 21, 
N 3. — P. 441–444.

258. Hruza M., Zuazu J.R., Goezen A.S. et al. Laparoscopic and open stone sur-

gery //Arch. Ital. Urol. Androl. 2010 Mar. — Vol. 82, N 1. — P. 64–71.

259. Skrepetis K., Doumas K., Siafakas I. et al. Laparoscopic versus open ure-

terolithotomy. A comparative study //Eur. Urol. — 2001 Jul. — Vol. 40, N 1. — 
P. 32–36; discussion 37.

260. El-Feel A., Abouel-Fettouh H., Abdel-Hakim A.M. Laparoscopic transperi-

toneal ureterolithotomy //J. Endourol. — 2007 Jan. — Vol. 21, N 1. — P. 50–54.

261. Gaur D.D., Trivedi S., Prabhudesai M.R., Madhusudhana H.R. et al. Lap-

aroscopic ureterolithotomy: technical considerations and long term follow up //
BJU Int. — 2002 Mar. — Vol. 89, N 4. — P. 339–343.

262. Flasko T., Holman E., Kovacs G. et al. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: the 

method of choice in selectedcases //J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A. — 2005 
Apr. — Vol. 15, N 2. — P. 149–152.

263. Kij vikai K., Patcharatrakul S. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: its role and 

some controversial technical considerations //Int. J. Urol. — 2006 Mar. — Vol. 13, 
N 3. — P. 206–210.

264. Wang Y., Hou J., Wen D. et al. Comparative analysis of upper ureteral stones (> 

15 mm) treated with retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy and ureteroscopic pneu-
matic lithotripsy //Int. Urol. Nephrol. — 2010 Dec. — Vol. 42, N 4. — P. 897–901.

265.  Lopes Neto A.C., Korkes F., Silva J.L. 2nd et al. Prospective randomized 

study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave 
lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy //J. Urol. — 2012 Jan. — 
Vol. 187, N 1. — P. 164–168.

266. Tefekli A., Tepeler A., Akman T. et al. The comparison of laparoscopic pyelo-

lithotomy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of solitary large re-
nal pelvic stones //Urol. Res. — 2012 Oct. — Vol. 40, N 5. — P. 549–555.

267. de la Rosette J., Denstedt J., Geavlete P., Keeley F., Matsuda T., Pearle M., 

Preminger G., Traxer O. The clinical research offi

  ce of the endourological soci-

ety ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11885 
patients; CROES URS Study Group //J. Endourol. — 2014 Feb. — Vol. 28, N 
2. —P.131-139. 

ДОПОЛНИТЕЛЬНАЯ ЛИТЕРАТУРА

1. Александров В.П., Тиктинский О.Л. и др. Особенности камнеобразова-

ния в почках у больных в семьях, отягощенных уролитиазом // Урол. и не-
фрол. — 1993. — № 4. — С. 16–19.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

содержание   ..  15  16  17  18   ..