урология 2017

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь

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 metaanalysis // Urol. Int. — 2010. — Vol. 84, N 3. — P. 254–259.

62.Lojanapiwat B., Kochakarn W., Suparatchatpan N. et al. E fectiveness of lowdose and standard-dose tamsulosin in the treatment of distal ureteric stones: A randomized controlled study // J. Int. Med. Res. — 2008 May–Jun. — Vol. 36,

N3. — P. 529–536.

63.Wang C.J., Huang S.W., Chang C.H. E ficacy 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. E ficacy 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. E ficacy of tamsulosin in the ma nagementoflowerureteralstones: arandomizeddouble-blindplacebo-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 e ficacy of 3 di ferent 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 e ficacy 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. E ficacy 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 E ficacy 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.

131

Российские клинические рекомендации по урологии

73.Sun X., He L., Ge W. et al. E ficacy 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 e ficacy 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. E ficacy 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.

78.Ye Z., Yang H., Li H. et al. A multicentre, prospective, randomized trial: comparative e ficacy of tamsulosin and nifedipine in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones with renal colic // BJU Int. — 2011 Jul. — Vol. 108,

N2. — 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 simplified 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., Rufibach 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 e ficacy than conventional treatment for distal ureteral stone expulsion in Mexican patients // Urol. Res. — 2011 Dec. — Vol. 39, N 6. — P. 491–495.

132

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь

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. E fect 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., Duijvesz 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,

N6. — P. 425–432.

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.

133

Российские клинические рекомендации по урологии

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 e fects 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 influenced 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 flexible 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. E fect 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.

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.Endourol. — 2012 Oct. — Vol. 26, N 10. — P. 1257–1263.

109.Akar E.C., Knudsen B.E. Flexible Ureteroscopy Versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy 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 ureterorenoscopy 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 flexible ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy: cost and outcomes analysis // J. Urol. — 2009. — Vol. 182. — P. 1012–1017.

134

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь

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 flexible ureteroscopy 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 retrograde 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 surgery: 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 significant 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 prediction of lower-pole caliceal stone clearance: reproducibility of di ferent parameters // 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. Redefining the limits of flexible ureterorenoscopy // J. Endourol. — 2011 Jan. — Vol. 25, N 1. — P. 45–49.

123.Wendt-Nordahl G., Mut T., Krombach P. et al. Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes o fer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? //

Urol. Res. — 2011 Jun. — Vol. 39, N 3. — P. 185–188.

124.PrabhakarM.Retrogradeureteroscopicintrarenalsurgeryforlarge(1.6–3.5cm)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.

135

Российские клинические рекомендации по урологии

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 e ficacy of ultrasonography as an adjunct to fluoroscopy for renal access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (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 e ficient 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 a fect the e fectiveness 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 RetrogradeUreterolithotripsy//J.Endourol. —2008May. —Vol.22,N5. —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.

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.

136

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь

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. Postoperative 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 e ficacy 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,

N4. — P. 609–613.

146.Kufer R., Thamasett S., Volkmer B. et al. New-generation lithotripters for treatment of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator: 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 extracorporeal 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 coagulopathy // 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. Electron microscopic findings 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 lithotripsy 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 extracorporeal 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 patients 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 extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: aetiology, prevention and management // BJU Int. — 2001 Nov. — Vol. 88, N 7. — P. 675–678.

137

Российские клинические рекомендации по урологии

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.

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 e fect 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. E fects 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 calcified 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 beneficial: 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/defibrillators, and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: evidencebased guidelines for the modern era // J. Endourol. — 2008 Feb. — Vol. 22, N 2. — P. 243–247.

138

Глава 4. Мочекаменная болезнь

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 e fects 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.

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

180.Demirci D., Sofikerim M., Yalcin E. et al. Comparison of conventional and stepwise 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 randomized, 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 following 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 anesthesia improve treatmentoutcome with third-generation lithotripters // J. Endourol. — 2001 Sep. — Vol. 15, N 7. — P. 671–673.

139

Российские клинические рекомендации по урологии

185.Sorensen C., Chandhoke P., Moore M. et al. Comparison of intravenous sedation versus general anesthesia on the e ficacy 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. E fect of stone motion on in vitro comminution e ficiency 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 urinary 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 prophylactic antibiotics during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy // Int. Urol. Nephrol. — 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 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,

N2. — 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,

N6. — 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 gelatineseassociated 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 flexible ureteroscopy? // J. Endourol. — 2010 Oct. — Vol. 24,

N10. — P. 1589–1592.

140