Literature DB >> 17206896

Primary ureteroscopy for distal-ureteral stones compared with ureteroscopy after failed extracorporeal lithotripsy.

Volkan Tugcu1, Gokhan Gürbüz, Bekir Aras, Levent Gurkan, Alper Otunctemur, Ali Ihsan Tasci.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: We reviewed our experiences with ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS-PL) for the treatment of distal-ureteral stones and investigated whether failed extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a limiting factor for the ureteroscopic procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied the medical records of 375 patients treated with URS-PL from January 1999 to September 2005 in our clinic. Of these patients, 213 were treated with URS-PL primarily (group 1), whereas the remaining 162 patients had undergone SWL unsuccessfully before URS-PL was performed (group 2). We used 9F or 9.5F rigid instruments and the Vibrolith (Elmed, Ankara, Turkey).
RESULTS: In group 1, 206 patients (96.7%) were treated successfully with URS alone, as were 155 patients (95.6%) in group 2. Impacted stones were observed in 21 patients in group 1 (9.85%) and in 57 patients in group 2 (35.1%). The average operating time was 33.19 +/- 9.039 minutes in group 1 and 57.42 +/- 8.757 minutes in group 2. The stone-free rates of the two groups were significantly different on the first postoperative day, but this difference decreased to an insignificant level at the end of the first month.
CONCLUSION: When SWL fails, URS-PL is as safe and effective as primary URS. Pneumatic lithotripsy also seems to be effective for impacted stones.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17206896     DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.20.1025

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


  9 in total

1.  Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous?

Authors:  Muhammet Fatih Kilinc; Omer Gokhan Doluoglu; Tolga Karakan; Ayhan Dalkilic; Nurettin Cem Sonmez; Yasin Aydogmus; Berkan Resorlu
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Does previous failed ESWL have a negative impact of on the outcome of ureterorenoscopy? A matched pair analysis.

Authors:  Prodromos Philippou; David Payne; Kim Davenport; Anthony G Timoney; Francis X Keeley
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Complementary Ureterorenoscopy after extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in proximal ureteral stones: success and complications.

Authors:  Erhan Demirelli; Ercan Öğreden; Doğan Sabri Tok; Özay Demiray; Mehmet Karadayi; Ural Oğuz
Journal:  Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992)       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 1.712

4.  Ten-year experience in the management of distal ureteral stones greater than 10 mm in size.

Authors:  L Dell'Atti; Sergio Papa
Journal:  G Chir       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb

5.  Influence of ureteral stone components on the outcomes of electrohydraulic lithotripsy.

Authors:  Hyeong Cheol Song; Ha Bum Jung; Yong Seong Lee; Young Goo Lee; Ki Kyung Kim; Sung Tae Cho
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2012-12-20

Review 6.  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

7.  Management of lower ureteric stones: a prospective study.

Authors:  Mohamed Etafy; Gamal A M Morsi; Mansour S M Beshir; Sheri S Soliman; Hussein A Galal; Cervando Ortiz-Vanderdys
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2014-01-27

8.  Effect of Endoscopic Ureteral Stone Treatment on Kidney Function.

Authors:  Volkan Selmi; Sercan Sarı; Mehmet Caniklioğlu; Ünal Öztekin; Mehmet Sakir Taspinar; Levent Işıkay
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-01-24

9.  Comparison of ureteroscopy (URS) complementary treatment after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy failure with primary URS lithotripsy with holmium laser treatment for proximal ureteral stones larger than10mm.

Authors:  Feng Yao; XiaoLiang Jiang; Bin Xie; Ning Liu
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 2.264

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.