PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) with ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed, retrospectively, the records of 500 patients (366 male, 134 female) with ureteral calculi treated by PL with the Swiss Lithoclast. Of these patients, 124 (24.8%) were treated primarily and 376 (75.2%) were treated secondarily after unsuccessful extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). The results were evaluated 3 months after treatment by excretory urography, ultrasonography, or both. RESULTS: The over-all stone-free and fragmentation rates were 94.6% and 96.8%, respectively. These values were 97.1% and 98.5% for stones <or=10 mm and 83.7% and 89.1% for stones >10 mm, respectively. The main complications were stone migration (2.0%), urosepsis (3.0%), and ureteral perforation (1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: While SWL is generally excepted as a first-line treatment option in ureteral stones because of its noninvasive nature, in situ lithotripsy, and especially PL, has higher success rates with minimal morbidity. Thus, PL seems to be a good alternative in patients in whom SWL was unsuccessful or not indicated and in patients who need early stone removal.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) with ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed, retrospectively, the records of 500 patients (366 male, 134 female) with ureteral calculi treated by PL with the Swiss Lithoclast. Of these patients, 124 (24.8%) were treated primarily and 376 (75.2%) were treated secondarily after unsuccessful extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). The results were evaluated 3 months after treatment by excretory urography, ultrasonography, or both. RESULTS: The over-all stone-free and fragmentation rates were 94.6% and 96.8%, respectively. These values were 97.1% and 98.5% for stones <or=10 mm and 83.7% and 89.1% for stones >10 mm, respectively. The main complications were stone migration (2.0%), urosepsis (3.0%), and ureteral perforation (1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: While SWL is generally excepted as a first-line treatment option in ureteral stones because of its noninvasive nature, in situ lithotripsy, and especially PL, has higher success rates with minimal morbidity. Thus, PL seems to be a good alternative in patients in whom SWL was unsuccessful or not indicated and in patients who need early stone removal.
Authors: Mohammed A Al-Ghazo; Ibrahim Fathi Ghalayini; Rami S Al-Azab; Osamah Bani Hani; Ibrahim Bani-Hani; Mohammad Abuharfil; Yazan Haddad Journal: Urol Res Date: 2011-04-17
Authors: Tarek K Fathelbab; Amr M Abdelhamid; Ahmed Z M Anwar; Ehab M Galal; Mamdouh M El-Hawy; Ahmed H Abdelgawad; Ehab R Tawfiek Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2020-08-13
Authors: Essam A Shalaby; Khaled M Abdelhalim; Mohamed Bakr; Ahmed A El-Lilly; Mohamed A Elkoushy Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 2.861