Literature DB >> 15540749

Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones.

Ching-Fang Wu1, Jia-Jen Shee, Wei-Yu Lin, Chun-Liang Lin, Chih-Shou Chen.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Management of large impacted upper ureteral calculi remains challenging for urologists. These calculi are frequently associated with obstructive uropathy and deteriorated renal function. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the least invasive treatment but its success rate is decreased for large impacted upper ureteral calculi. According to the American Urological Association guidelines on ureteral stones published in 1997, the appropriateness of ureteroscopy decreases when stone size exceeds 1 cm. However, the application of advanced ureteroscopy and techniques has increased the success rate of treating proximal ureter calculi. In this study we compared the safety and efficacy of ureterorenoscopic holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy (URSL) with SWL for large impacted proximal ureteral stones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated 82 patients with large impacted upper ureteral stones. Two patients were excluded from study owing to conversion to open surgery. SWL and URSL were performed in 41 and 39 patients, respectively. Those in the SWL group were treated on an outpatient basis with Medispec Econolith 2000 (Medispec, Germantown, Maryland) under intravenous sedation. The URSL was performed with a 6/7.5Fr semirigid tapered ureterorenoscope and holmium:YAG laser with the patient under spinal anesthesia on an inpatient basis. Successful outcome was defined as the patient being stone-free on radiography 1 month after treatment. Stone size, success rate, postoperative complications and cost were analyzed in each group.
RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled in this study. Hematuria and flank pain were the most common complaints in each group. Mean stone size +/- SD was 1.28 +/- 0.04 cm in the SWL group and 1.51 +/- 0.05 cm in URSL group (p = 0.0009). Accessibility of the semirigid ureterorenoscope for impacted upper ureteral stones was 95.1% (39 of 41) and the stone-free rate achieved after 1 sitting was 92% (36 of 39). The initial stone-free rate of in situ SWL was 61% (25 of 41). Notably, the initial stone-free rate in the URSL group was better than that of the SWL group (p = 0.003). The efficiency quotient was 0.53 for URSL and 0.59 for SWL. The average cost in the URSL group appears to be lower than in the SWL group. Both groups were free of major complications.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that URSL achieved excellent results for upper ureteral calculi greater than 1 cm. Thus, this procedure should be considered first line therapy for large proximal ureteral stones.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15540749     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000142848.43880.b3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  38 in total

1.  Stenting or not prior to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? Results of a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Stavros Sfoungaristos; Nikolaos Polimeros; Adamantios Kavouras; Petros Perimenis
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Value of focal applied energy quotient in treatment of ureteral lithiasis with shock waves.

Authors:  Miguel Angel Arrabal-Polo; Miguel Arrabal-Martin; Francisco Palao-Yago; Jose Luis Mijan-Ortiz; Armando Zuluaga-Gomez
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2011-10-15

3.  [Ureterorenoscopy: yesterday, today, tomorrow].

Authors:  T Knoll; P Alken
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Pneumatic versus laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a comparison of initial outcomes and cost.

Authors:  Aslan Demir; Mert Ali Karadağ; Kurşat Ceçen; Mehmet Uslu; Omer Erkam Arslan
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 5.  [Imaging modalities and therapy options in patients with acute flank pain].

Authors:  A Grosse; C Grosse
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 6.  [Ureteroscopy (URS) for ureteric calculi].

Authors:  R Hofmann
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  Comparison of Patient Satisfaction with Treatment Outcomes between Ureteroscopy and Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Stones.

Authors:  Jong-Hyun Lee; Seung Hyo Woo; Eun Tak Kim; Dae Kyung Kim; Jinsung Park
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2010-11-17

8.  Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi: a prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Jinsung Park; Dong Wook Shin; Jae Hoon Chung; Seung Wook Lee
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Noninvasive management of obstructing ureteral stones using electromagnetic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  M C Sighinolfi; S M Chiara; S Micali; M Salvatore; S De Stefani; D S Stefano; G Saredi; A Mofferdin; M Grande; G Bianchi; B Giampaolo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-02-13       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy.

Authors:  Xiao-Jian Gu; Jian Lin Lu; Yan Xu
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-01-20       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.