Ureteroscopic Management with Laser Lithotripsy of Renal Pelvic Stones

被引:25
|
作者
Atis, Gokhan [1 ]
Gurbuz, Cenk [1 ]
Arikan, Ozgur [1 ]
Canat, Lutfi [1 ]
Kilic, Mert [1 ]
Caskurlu, Turhan [1 ]
机构
[1] Goztepe Training & Res Hosp, Dept Urol, Istanbul, Turkey
关键词
SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY; PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY; FLEXIBLE URETERORENOSCOPY; SEMIRIGID URETEROSCOPY; STAGHORN CALCULI; CM; COMPLICATIONS; GUIDELINE; PRESSURE; SURGERY;
D O I
10.1089/end.2011.0664
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background and Purpose: The development of semirigid and flexible ureteroscopes has permitted easier access to calculi throughout the urinary tract. We compared the use of semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy for the management of shockwave lithotripsy-refractory, isolated renal pelvic calculi by evaluating stone-free rates, operating room times, and associated complications. Patients and Methods: Ureteroscopic stone treatment was attempted in 47 patients with isolated renal pelvic stones between November 2008 and December 2010. The procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Semirigid ureteroscopy was routinely performed in all patients. If the stones were accessible in the renal pelvis with the semirigid ureteroscope (S-URS), they were then treated with the holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser through S-URS under direct vision. If the stones were not accessible, flexible ureteroscopy was then performed. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were retrospectively analyzed. Results: In 25 of 47 patients, renal pelvic stones were accessible with S-URS, and the stones were fragmented with the Ho:YAG laser using S-URS. In the remaining 22 patients, the stones were accessed with the flexible ureteroscope (F-URS), and the fragmentation of stones was performed with the Ho:YAG laser using the F-URS. There were no significant differences in age, body mass index, grade of hydronephrosis, mean stone size, and stone laterality among the two groups. The mean operative times were 71.90+/-17.90 minutes in the S-URS group and 93.41+/-18.56 minutes in the F-URS group (P = 0.001). The stone-free rates at postoperative day 1 and at the 1 month follow-up were 72% and 76% in the S-URS group and 81.8% and 86.4% in the F-URS group, respectively (P = 0.861 and P = 0.368). We found no significant differences among groups with regard to stone-free rates, complication rates, and hospital lengths of stay. Conclusions: Although it is well known that flexible ureteroscopy permits a detailed caliceal examination and therapeutic interventions, semirigid ureteroscopy is also often another sufficient means of reaching the renal pelvis in selected patients.
引用
收藏
页码:983 / 987
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted, large, proximal ureteral stones
    Juan, Yung-Shun
    Shen, Jung-Tsung
    Li, Ching-Chia
    Wang, Chii-Jye
    Chuang, Shu-Mien
    Huang, Chun-Hsiung
    Wu, Wen-Jeng
    KAOHSIUNG JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2008, 24 (04): : 204 - 208
  • [32] Comparison of Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy with Ureteroscopic Lasertripsy for Management of Proximal Ureteral Stones
    Mustafa, Ghulam
    Mahar, Naveed Ahmed
    Qureshi, Harris Hassan
    Mustafa, Mohsan
    Fayaz, Muhammad
    Hassan, Asad Shahzad
    JCPSP-JOURNAL OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS PAKISTAN, 2024, 34 (01): : 101 - 104
  • [33] Renal abscess post ureteroscopic lithotripsy
    Aljumaiah, Sahar
    Abumelha, Saad
    Bin Hamri, Saeed
    UROLOGY CASE REPORTS, 2022, 42
  • [34] Comparison of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy with Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for Large Proximal and Mid-Ureter Stones
    Kaygisiz, Onur
    Coskun, Burhan
    Kilicarslan, Hakan
    Kordan, Yakup
    Vuruskan, Hakan
    Ozmerdiven, Gokhun
    Yavacaoglu, Ismet
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2015, 94 (02) : 205 - 209
  • [35] Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for management of large upper third ureteral stones
    Lee, YH
    Tsai, JY
    Jiaan, BP
    Wu, T
    Yu, CC
    UROLOGY, 2006, 67 (03) : 480 - 484
  • [36] COST EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF RENAL CALCULI TREATED WITH URETEROSCOPIC LASER LITHOTRIPSY VERSUS SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY
    Pareek, Gyan
    Cone, Eugene
    Ursiny, Michal
    Eisner, Brian
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 191 (04): : E64 - E64
  • [37] Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience
    Iqbal, Nadeem
    Malik, Yashfeen
    Nadeem, Utbah
    Khalid, Maham
    Pirzada, Amna
    Majeed, Mehr
    Malik, Hajra Arshad
    Akhter, Saeed
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 44 (03): : 221 - 227
  • [38] Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Renal Calculi Treated with Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy Versus Shockwave Lithotripsy
    Cone, Eugene B.
    Eisner, Brian H.
    Ursiny, Michal
    Pareek, Gyan
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2014, 28 (06) : 639 - 643
  • [39] Flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy with PolyScope for senile patients with renal calculi
    Xu, Ke
    Ding, Jie
    Shi, Bowen
    Wu, Yanyuan
    Huang, Yunteng
    EXPERIMENTAL AND THERAPEUTIC MEDICINE, 2018, 16 (03) : 1723 - 1728
  • [40] URETERAL VS. RENAL URETEROSCOPIC LASER LITHOTRIPSY- ARE THEY REALLY EQUAL?
    Deters, Levi
    Pais, Vernon
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 187 (04): : E740 - E741