Literature DB >> 15735383

Complications of pneumatic ureterolithotripsy in the early postoperative period.

I Atilla Aridogan1, Sinan Zeren, Yildirim Bayazit, Bülent Soyupak, Saban Doran.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To document the perioperative and early postoperative complications of pneumatic ureterolithotripsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1997 and December 2003, pneumatic ureterolithotripsy was performed in 665 male and 314 female patients for stones >0.5 cm. The age range was 9 months to 72 years (mean 41 years). Preoperatively, intravenous urography, urinalysis, and urine culture were done. Cefepime 1 g was given as prophylactic antimicrobial therapy 1 hour prior to surgery. A plain film of the urinary tract was taken immediately before the procedure. The operations were carried out with the patient under general anesthesia. Rigid ureteroscopes (6.9F ACMI "micro-6" or 8F-10F Storz) and the Vibrolith (Elmed, Ankara, Turkey) pneumatic lithotripter were used. The fragments were extracted with forceps or baskets. Urinalysis and culture as a routine postoperative evaluation and a plain film or ultrasonogram of the urinary tract when needed were done 1 week after the procedure.
RESULTS: The stones were completely removed in 847 patients (86.5%); 783 (80%) of them went home on the day of surgery. A ureteral stent was needed in 401 patients (41.0%). Perioperative complications were migration of the stone into the kidney in 70 patients (7.2%), mucosal damage in 34 (3.5%), ureteral perforation in 17 (1.7%), ureteral avulsion in 4 (0.4%), and conversion to open surgery in 3 (0.2%). During the early postoperative period, flank pain (18.4%), pelvic discomfort (5.5%), macroscopic hematuria (7.3%), and urinary tract infection (5%) were recorded.
CONCLUSION: Ureterolithotripsy by a pneumatic lithotripter is a minimally invasive, highly tolerable procedure with a low complication rate and short hospital stay when performed meticulously with appropriate instruments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15735383     DOI: 10.1089/end.2005.19.50

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  6 in total

1.  Pneumatic lithotripsy for large ureteral stones: is it the first line treatment?

Authors:  Lutfi Tunc; Bora Kupeli; Cagri Senocak; Turgut Alkibay; Sinan Sözen; Ustunol Karaoglan; Ibrahim Bozkirli
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2007-02-22       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  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

3.  Categorization of intraoperative ureteroscopy complications using modified Satava classification system.

Authors:  Abdulkadir Tepeler; Berkan Resorlu; Tolga Sahin; Selcuk Sarikaya; Mirze Bayindir; Ural Oguz; Abdullah Armagan; Ali Unsal
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-03-17       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  Does previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wei Wang; Liao Peng; Xingpeng Di; Xiaoshuai Gao; Xin Wei
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-05

5.  Reporting ureteroscopy complications using the modified clavien classification system.

Authors:  Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar

6.  Treatment of ureteral stones: A prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of Ho:YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripsy.

Authors:  Robab Maghsoudi; Mohsen Amjadi; Davood Norizadeh; Hassan Hassanzadeh
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2008-07
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.