Buyrakdagi tosh yoki nefrolitiaz - bu siydikdagi moddalardan buyrakda hosil bo'ladigan qattiq kristall moddadir. U qum donasidek mayda yoki marvariddek yirik bo'lishi ham mumkin. Ko'pincha buyrak toshlari shifokor yordamisiz ham organizmdan chiqib ketadi. Ammo ba'zida tosh yo'qolmasligi ham mumkin. U siydik yo'liga yopishib qolishi, siydik oqimini to'sib qo'yishi va kuchli og'riq keltirib chiqarishi mumkin. Hozirgi kunda ushbu kasallikni davolashning zamonaviy usullari ishlab chiqilgan. Davolashning medikamentoz va jarroxlik usullari mavjud bo'lib, yil sayin rivojlanib bormoqda. Ushbu maqolada buyrak tosh kasalliklarini davolashning zamonaviy usullari haqida muhokama qilamiz.
Почечный камень или нефролитиаз - твердое кристаллическое вещество, образующееся в почках из веществ, содержащихся в моче. Он может быть размером с песчинку или большим, как жемчуг. Часто камни в почках покидают организм без помощи врача. Но иногда камень может не исчезнуть. Он может прилипать к мочевыводящим путям, блокировать отток мочи и вызывать сильную боль. В настоящее время разработаны современные методы лечения этого заболевания. Доступны лекарственные и хирургические методы лечения, которые развиваются из года в год. В этой статье мы обсудим современные методы лечения камней в почках.
Buyrakdagi tosh yoki nefrolitiaz - bu siydikdagi moddalardan buyrakda hosil bo'ladigan qattiq kristall moddadir. U qum donasidek mayda yoki marvariddek yirik bo'lishi ham mumkin. Ko'pincha buyrak toshlari shifokor yordamisiz ham organizmdan chiqib ketadi. Ammo ba'zida tosh yo'qolmasligi ham mumkin. U siydik yo'liga yopishib qolishi, siydik oqimini to'sib qo'yishi va kuchli og'riq keltirib chiqarishi mumkin. Hozirgi kunda ushbu kasallikni davolashning zamonaviy usullari ishlab chiqilgan. Davolashning medikamentoz va jarroxlik usullari mavjud bo'lib, yil sayin rivojlanib bormoqda. Ushbu maqolada buyrak tosh kasalliklarini davolashning zamonaviy usullari haqida muhokama qilamiz.
A kidney stone or nephrolithiasis is a solid piece of material that forms in the kidney from substances in the urine. It may be as small as a grain of sand or as large as a pearl. Most kidney stones pass out of the body without help from a doctor. But sometimes a stone will not go away. It may get stuck in the urinary tract, block the flow of urine and cause great pain. At present, modern methods of treatment of this disease have been developed. There are medical and surgical methods of treatment, which are developing every year. In this article we will discuss modern methods of treatment of kidney stones.
| № | Имя автора | Должность | Наименование организации |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kasimova N.Q. | . | Андижанский Государственный медицинский институт |
| 2 | Ishanchaeva N.Q. | . | Андижанский Государственный медицинский институт |
| 3 | Ruzioxunova N.M. | . | Андижанский Государственный медицинский институт |
| № | Название ссылки |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1. Yavuz Guler and Akif Erbin. Comparison of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal pelvic and proximal ureteral stones ≤2 cm in children. 2020 Oct 1. doi: 10.4103/iju.IJU_116_20 PMCID: PMC7759164 PMID: 33376264 |
| 2 | 2. Tasian GE, Kabarriti AE, Kalmus A, Furth SL. Kidney stone recurrence among children and adolescents. J Urol. 2017;197:246–52 |
| 3 | 3. Jobs K, Rakowska M, Paturej A. Urolithiasis in the pediatric population - current opinion on epidemiology, patophysiology, diagnostic evaluation and treatment. Dev Period Med. 2018;22:201–8 |
| 4 | 4. Slavković A, Radovanović M, Sirić Z, Vlajković M, Stefanović V. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for cystine urolithiasis in children: Outcome and complications. Int Urol Nephrol. 2002;34:457–61 |
| 5 | 5. Khan M, Lal M, Kash DP, Hussain M, Rizvi S. Anatomical factors predicting lower calyceal stone clearance after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. African J Urol. 2016;22:96–100 |
| 6 | 6. Park HK, Kim JH, Min GE, Choi WS, Li S, Chung KJ, et al. Change of trends in the treatment modality for pediatric nephrolithiasis: Retrospective analysis of a US-based insurance claims database. J Endourol. 2019;33:614–8 |
| 7 | 7. Elawady, H., Mahmoud, M. A., & Samir, M. (2021). Can we successfully predict the outcome for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for medium size renal stones? A singlecenter experience. Urologia Journal, 039156032110163. doi:10.1177/03915603211016355 |
| 8 | 8. Wolf JS Jr. Treatment selection and outcomes: ureteral calculi. Urol Clin N Am 2007; 34(3): 421–430 |
| 9 | 9. Yamashita S, Kohjimoto Y, Iguchi T, et al. Ureteral wall volume at ureteral stone site is a critical predictor for shock wave lithotripsy outcomes: comparison with ureteral wall thickness and area. Urolithiasis 2020; 48(4): 361–368 |
| 10 | 10. Hameed DA, Elgammal MA, ElGanainy EO, et al. Comparing non contrast computerized tomography criteria versus dual X-ray absorptiometry as predictors of radioopaque upper urinary tract stone fragmentation after electromagnetic shockwave lithotripsy. Urolithiasis 2013; 41: 511–515 |
| 11 | 11. El-Assmy A, Abou-el-Ghar ME, El-Nahas AR, et al. Multidetector computed tomography: role in determination of urinary stones composition and disintegration |
| 12 | 12. Foda V, Abd eldaeim H, Youssif M, et al. Calculating the number of shock waves, expulsion time, and optimum stone parameters based on noncontrast computerized tomography characteristics. Urology 2013; 82(5): 1026–1031 |
| 13 | 13. Massoud AM, Abdelbary AM, Al-Dessoukey AA, et al. The success of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy based on the stone-attenuation value from non-contrast computed tomography. Arab J Urol 2014; 12(2): 155–161 |
| 14 | 14. Badran YA, Abdelaziz AS, Shehab MA, et al. Is scoring system of computed tomography based metric parameters can accurately predicts shock wave lithotripsy stone-free rates and aid in the development of treatment strategies? Urol Ann 2016; 8: 197–202 |
| 15 | 15. Perks AE, Schuler TD, Lee J, et al. Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2008; 72: 765–769 |
| 16 | 16. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Panagopoulos G, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield units. Urology 2005; 65: 33–3617. Ng CF, Siu DY, Wong A, et al. Development of a scoring system from non-contrast computerized tomography measurements to improve the selection of upper ureteral stone for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2009; 181: 1151–1157 18. Choi JW, Song PH and Kim HT. Predictive factors of the outcom |
| 17 | 17. Ng CF, Siu DY, Wong A, et al. Development of a scoring system from non-contrast computerized tomography measurements to improve the selection of upper ureteral stone for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2009; 181: 1151–1157 |
| 18 | 18. Choi JW, Song PH and Kim HT. Predictive factors of the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Korean J Urol 2012; 53: 424–443 |
| 19 | 19. Bandi G, Meiners RJ, Pickhardt PJ, et al. Stone measurement by volumetric threedimensional computed tomography for predicting the outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. BJU Int 2009; 103(4): 524–528 |
| 20 | 20. Falagario, Ugo Giovannia; Calò, Beppeb; Auciello, Marioa; Carrieri, Giuseppea; Cormio, Luigia. Advanced ureteroscopic techniques for the management of kidney stones. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000835 |
| 21 | 21. Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Campbell MF. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 11th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2015 |
| 22 | 22. Zafar FS, Lingeman JE. Value of laparoscopy in the management of calculi complicating renal malformations. J Endourol. 1996;10:379–383 |
| 23 | 23. Raj GV, Auge BK, Assimos D, et al. Metabolic abnormalities associated with renal calculi in patients with horseshoe kidney. J Endouol. 2004;18:157–161 |
| 24 | 24. Tepeler A, Sehgal PD, Akman T, et al. Factors afecting outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in horseshoe kidneys. Urology. 2014;84(6):1290–1294 |
| 25 | 25. Tunc L, Tokgoz H, Tan MO, et al. Stones in anomalous kidneys: results of treatment by shockwave lithotripsy in 150 patients. Int J Urol. 2004;11(10):831–836 |
| 26 | 26. Viola D, Anagnostou T, Thompson TJ, et al. Sixteen years of experience with stone management in horseshoe kidneys. Urol Int. 2007;78(3):214–218 |
| 27 | 27. Lee JW, Park J, Lee SB, Son H, Cho SY, Jeong H. Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones larger than 10 mm: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Urology. 2015;86:873e7 |
| 28 | 28. Guisti G, Proietti S, Peshechera R, et al. Sky is the limit for ureteroscopy: extending the indications and special circumstances. World J Urol. 2015;33:257–273 |
| 29 | 29. Laurian BD, Bhaskar KS, Etienne XK, et al. Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts>an in-vitro comparative analysis. Transl Androl Urol. 2015;8(Suppl 4):S359–S370 |
| 30 | 30. Nagele U, Nicklas A (2016) Vacuum cleaner effect, purging effect, active and passive wash out: a new terminology in hydrodynamic stone retrival is arising–Does it affect our endourologic routine? World J Urol 34:143–144. doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1575 |
| 31 | 31. Nicklas AP, Schilling D, Bader MJ et al (2015) The vacuum cleaner effect in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. World J Urol 33:1847–1853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1541-4 |
| 32 | 32. Zhu W, Liu Y, Liu L et al (2015) Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 43:563–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240- 015-0808-y |
| 33 | 33. Karakan T, Kilinc MF, Doluoglu OG et al (2017) The modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy technique and comparison with standard nephrolithotomy: a randomized prospective study. Urolithiasis 45:209–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0890-9 |
| 34 | 34. Song L, Chen Z, Liu T et al (2011) The application of a patented system to minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 25:1281–1286. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0032 |
| 35 | 35. Fernstrom I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:257–259 https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.1976.11882084 |
| 36 | 36. Alken P, Hutschenreiter G, Gunther R, Marberger M (1981) Percutaneous stone manipulation. J Urol 125:463–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)55073-9 |
| 37 | 37. Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K et al (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69:475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041 |