Literature DB >> 17899430

Does stone dimension affect the effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones?

Volkan Tuğcu1, Ali Ihsan Taşci, Emin Ozbek, Bekir Aras, Levent Verim, Levent Gürkan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether stone dimension is a restrictive factor for ureterorenoscopic procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A group of 416 patients who had undergone ureterorenoscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS-PL) for lower ureteral stones between January 1999 and June 2006 in our clinic had been evaluated retrospectively. Two hundred and seventy (270, 64.9%) patients were men and 146 (35.1%) were women. The mean age of the patients was 36.61 (+/- 12.43) years. Patients were grouped according to stone dimension; 193 patients with stones smaller than 1 cm being group 1 and 223 patients with stones > or = 1 cm in dimension being group 2. Stone-free rate, operative time and rate of complications of the groups were compared. Pearson's correlation test, chi2 test, Fischer's exact test and Student's t-test were used for the statistical analysis. The p value was accepted as being meaningful if p < 0.05.
RESULTS: For group 1, the mean operative time was 39.19 (+/- 18.33) min. Proximal stone migration in five and false passage formation in three patients was observed. Three patients were stone-free after a second session of URS-PL. The cumulative stone-free rate was 97.4% (188/193). For group 2, the mean operative time was 48.5 (+/- 11.31) min. About 208 (93.27%) patients were stone-free after the first session and an additional eight patients became stone-free after the second session of URS-PL. False passage, ureteral perforation, ureteral avulsion and stricture were observed in four, six, one and one patients, respectively. No proximal stone migration was observed. The cumulative stone-free rate was 96.86% (216/223).
CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of ureterorenoscopy (URS) in the treatment of distal ureteral stones was independent of stone dimension. However, the operative time was longer and the rate of perforation was higher in stones with a diameter > or = 1 cm. On the other hand, the migration rate was higher in stones < 1 cm in diameter. Generally speaking, there was no meaningful effect of stone dimension on complication rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 17899430     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-007-9278-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0301-1623            Impact factor:   2.370


  27 in total

1.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  R Peschel; G Janetschek; G Bartsch
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Complications of ureteroscopy: analysis of predictive factors.

Authors:  T G Schuster; B K Hollenbeck; G J Faerber; J S Wolf
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Intracorporeal or extracorporeal lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi? Effect of stone size and multiplicity on success rates.

Authors:  C G Eden; I R Mark; R R Gupta; J Eastman; N C Shrotri; R C Tiptaft
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Optimal treatment for distal ureteral calculi: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy.

Authors:  C P Chang; S H Huang; H L Tai; B F Wang; M Y Yen; K H Huang; H J Jiang; J Lin
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Comparison of outcomes of ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi located above and below the pelvic brim.

Authors:  B K Hollenbeck; T G Schuster; G J Faerber; J S Wolf
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi: a prospective study.

Authors:  W L Strohmaier; G Schubert; T Rosenkranz; A Weigl
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of distal ureteral calculi.

Authors:  K Miller; J R Bubeck; R Hautmann
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Optimal therapy for the distal ureteral stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy.

Authors:  K R Anderson; D W Keetch; D M Albala; P S Chandhoke; B L McClennan; R V Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 9.  Management of ureteric stones.

Authors:  Theodore Anagnostou; David Tolley
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Treatment of ureteral stones: comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endourologic alternatives.

Authors:  B Küpeli; H Biri; K Isen; M Onaran; T Alkibay; U Karaoğlan; I Bozkirli
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  3 in total

1.  Emergency ureteroscopic lithotripsy in acute renal colic caused by ureteral calculi: a retrospective study.

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

Review 2.  [Management of ureteral stones].

Authors:  M Straub; M Bader; F Strittmatter
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  [Influence of ureter stenting before ureterorenoscopic treatment of ureteral calculi].

Authors:  J Mueller; N Riechert-Mühe; A J Schrader; A Leitenberger; J Steinestel; M A Kuczyk; S Steffens; R Hofmann; J Sotelino
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 0.639

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.