Literature DB >> 20169409

Comparative analysis of upper ureteral stones (> 15 mm) treated with retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy and ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy.

YunYan Wang1, JianQuan Hou, DuanGai Wen, Jun OuYang, JunSong Meng, HaiJun Zhuang.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate an appropriate treatment for patients with upper ureteral stones, > 15 mm in size, by comparing the therapeutic outcomes for those undergoing retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPUL) and rigid ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URSPL) retrospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During the study period, 81 patients with a large upper ureteral stone (> 15 mm) were divided into two groups. RPUL was performed with retroperitoneal approach, and the stone was removed in group A. URSPL was conducted using a rigid ureteroscope, and pneumatic probe was used for lithotripsy in group B. The patient characteristics, success rate, stone-free rate, operation time, and complications were analyzed prospectively in the two groups.
RESULTS: The success rates of operation were 94.5% (34/36) in group A and 88.8% (40/45) in group B, but there were no significant differences between two groups (P > 0.05). After 4 weeks of follow-up, the stone-free rate after RPUL (100%, 34/34) and URSPL (77.5%, 31/40) groups were statistically different (P = 0.006). Furthermore, simultaneous ureterolithotomy and ureteroplasty by retroperitoneal laparoscopic surgery were performed on four patients combined with ureteral stricture. However, the mean operation time and hospital staying time after surgery in group A were longer than that in group B, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The complication rate after RPUL (17.6%, 6/34) was lower than that after URSPL (20%, 8/40), but the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: RPUL is a safe and effective treatment technique for large, impacted, upper ureteral stones >15 mm in size when first-line treatments have failed or are unlikely to be effective. It can handle with combined pathologies simultaneously.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20169409     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-010-9711-1

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


  14 in total

1.  Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and intracorporeal lithotripsy for proximal ureteric calculi--a comparative assessment of efficacy and safety.

Authors:  Y K Fong; S H Ho; O H Peh; F C Ng; P H C Lim; P L C Quek; K K Ng
Journal:  Ann Acad Med Singapore       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.473

Review 2.  Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Sanjeev Madaan; Adrian D Joyce
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.309

3.  Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for ureteral calculi.

Authors:  A Feyaerts; J Rietbergen; S Navarra; G Vallancien; B Guillonneau
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted, large, proximal ureteral stones.

Authors:  Yung-Shun Juan; Jung-Tsung Shen; Ching-Chia Li; Chii-Jye Wang; Shu-Mien Chuang; Chun-Hsiung Huang; Wen-Jeng Wu
Journal:  Kaohsiung J Med Sci       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.744

5.  Matched pair analysis of ureteroscopy vs. shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteric calculi.

Authors:  G D Stewart; S V Bariol; S A Moussa; G Smith; D A Tolley
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2007-03-26       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy for the treatment of ureteral calculi.

Authors:  Deniz Demirci; Ibrahim Gülmez; Oğuz Ekmekçioğlu; Mustafa Karacagil
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 7.  Laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy: initial experience and review of literature.

Authors:  Yassine Nouira; Yosri Kallel; Mohamed Y Binous; Hammadi Dahmoul; Ali Horchani
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 8.  Management of ureteric stones.

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

9.  Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for management of large upper third ureteral stones.

Authors:  Ying-Huei Lee; Jeng-Yu Tsai; Bang-Ping Jiaan; Tony Wu; Chia-Chen Yu
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Evaluation of role of retroperitoneoscopic pyelolithotomy and its comparison with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy.

Authors:  Apul Goel; A K Hemal
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.370

View more
  8 in total

1.  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

2.  Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm.

Authors:  Yuan Shao; Da-wei Wang; Guo-liang Lu; Zhou-jun Shen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  A comparison of antegrade percutaneous and laparoscopic approaches in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones.

Authors:  Hikmet Topaloglu; Nihat Karakoyunlu; Sercan Sari; Hakki Ugur Ozok; Levent Sagnak; Hamit Ersoy
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for proximal ureteral calculi in selected patients.

Authors:  Qingfeng Hu; Weihong Ding; Yuancheng Gou; Yatfaat Ho; Ke Xu; Bin Gu; Chuanyu Sun; Guowei Xia; Qiang Ding
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2014-12-08

5.  Comparison of the efficacy and safety of URSL, RPLU, and MPCNL for treatment of large upper impacted ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Yunyan Wang; Bing Zhong; Xiaosong Yang; Gongcheng Wang; Peijin Hou; Junsong Meng
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 2.264

6.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones: a meta-analysis comparing clinical efficacy and safety.

Authors:  Yeda Chen; Yaoan Wen; Qingfeng Yu; Xiaolu Duan; Wenqi Wu; Guohua Zeng
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2020-07-25       Impact factor: 2.264

7.  Efficacy of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for the treatment of large proximal ureteric stones and its impact on renal function.

Authors:  Takahiro Yasui; Atsushi Okada; Shuzo Hamamoto; Kazumi Taguchi; Ryosuke Ando; Kentaro Mizuno; Yasunori Itoh; Keiichi Tozawa; Yutaro Hayashi; Kenjiro Kohri
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2013-11-11

8.  Flexible ureteroscopy versus laparoscopy for the treatment of patients who initially presented with obstructive pyelonephritis.

Authors:  Selcuk Sahin; Berkan Resorlu; Mithat Eksi; Bekir Aras; Arda Atar; Volkan Tugcu
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.088

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.