Literature DB >> 18429682

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

Xiaowen Sun1, Shujie Xia, Jun Lu, Haitao Liu, Bangmin Han, Weiguo Li.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared the safety and efficacy of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy with retrograde ureterolithotripsy for large impacted proximal ureter stones in a prospective randomized manner.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 91 patients with large impacted proximal ureteral stones, defined as stones >1 cm in size located between the ureteropelvic junction and the lower border of the fourth lumbar vertebra, were prospectively randomized for antegrade (44) or retrograde (47) ureterolithotripsy. Failure of the procedure (conversion to an open procedure), intraoperative and postoperative morbidity, operative time, hospital stay, stone clearance at discharge home, and follow-up were analyzed in each group.
RESULTS: The main complications were bleeding (2.3%; 1 of 43) for the antegrade procedure and ureteral injury (2.3%; 1 of 44) for the retrograde procedure. Percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy was associated with longer operative times (75.4+/-11.8 v 30.6+/-7.8 minutes; P<0.001), longer hospital stay (6.3+/-0.5 v 2.1+/-0.4 days; P<0.001), and a longer interval to return to normal activities (7.8+/-0.7 v 2.7+/-0.6 days; P<0.001). Nevertheless, the percutaneous antegrade procedure had a higher stone-free rate both at discharge home (95.3% v 79.5%; P=0.027), and 1 month post-procedure (100% v 86.4%; P=0.026).
CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy is a valuable treatment modality for impacted proximal ureteral calculi larger than 1 cm, and achieves higher stone-free rates than those of retrograde ureteroscopy with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy. The drawbacks of the antegrade procedure are longer operative time and hospital stay.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18429682     DOI: 10.1089/end.2007.0230

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


  22 in total

Review 1.  Kidney stones.

Authors:  Timothy Y Tseng; Glenn M Preminger
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2011-11-10

2.  Retroperitoneoscopic versus open mini-incision ureterolithotomy for upper- and mid-ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Jai Prakash; Vishwajeet Singh; Manoj Kumar; Manoj Kumar; Rahul Janak Sinha; Satyanarayan Sankhwar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Minimally invasive surgical treatment for large impacted upper ureteral stones: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Authors:  Ibrahim Halil Bozkurt; Tarik Yonguc; Burak Arslan; Tansu Degirmenci; Bulent Gunlusoy; Ozgu Aydogdu; Omer Koras
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 4.  [Management of ureteral stones].

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

5.  The Efficacy of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Using Pneumatic Lithotripsy vs. the Holmium Laser: a Randomized Study.

Authors:  Chaoying Liu; Houyong Zhou; Weisheng Jia; Hua Hu; Heng Zhang; Longkun Li
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2016-03-19       Impact factor: 0.656

6.  Ureteral wall thickness at the impacted ureteral stone site: a critical predictor for success rates after SWL.

Authors:  Kemal Sarica; Alper Kafkasli; Özgür Yazici; Ali Cihangir Çetinel; Mehmet Kutlu Demirkol; Murat Tuncer; Cahit Şahin; Bilal Eryildirim
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 3.436

7.  Evaluation of pneumatic versus holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted ureteral stones.

Authors:  Murat Binbay; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Avinash Singh; Tolga Akman; Erdem Tekinaslan; Omer Sarilar; Murat Baykal; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2011-04-09       Impact factor: 2.370

8.  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

9.  Impaction of ureteral stones into the ureteral wall: Is it possible to predict?

Authors:  Kemal Sarica; Bilal Eryildirim; Cahit Sahin; Kubilay Sabuncu; Cihangir Cetinel; Fehmi Narter
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-12-11       Impact factor: 3.436

10.  'Boxing in the corner': A modified retrograde approach for the management of proximal ureteric stones of 1-2 cm.

Authors:  Omar Farid Elgebaly; Hussein Abdeldaeim; Tamer Abouyoussif; Ahmed Mahmoud Fahmy; Faisal Edris; Abdelrahman Zahran; Akram Assem
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2021-02-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.