OBJECTIVES: To compare the results of two different ureteroscopes in pediatric ureteroscopy (URS) procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-five consecutive URS procedures in pediatric population (39 males, 26 females) were retrospectively evaluated. The subjects were divided in two groups according to the type of ureteroscope used: Group 1 (n = 32, Wolf 8F) and group 2 (n = 33, ACMI 6.9F). All the procedures performed in both groups were statistically compared regarding patient age, gender, lateralization, complication rates, whether the procedure was diagnostic or therapeutic, and whether a guide-wire was used. Additionally, in cases with ureteral stones, stone clearance rate and the necessity of a stone extractor were also compared between the groups. All data were statistically analyzed using chi-square and t tests, where appropriate. A p value less than 0.05 was considered as significant. RESULTS: Mean age of the groups were comparable (9.44 +/- 4.3 and 8.67 +/- 3.9, p = 0.456). There was no statistically meaningful difference between the groups regarding patients' gender, lateralization rates, whether the procedure was diagnostic or therapeutic, the need for a guide-wire use, and complication rates (p > 0.05). In cases with ureteral stones, both groups exhibited statistically comparable results in stone clearance rates and the use of a stone extractor (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Data on this comparison demonstrated that both ureteroscopy devices in pediatric population can be used safely in URS procedures. Neither the diameter nor the rigidity is significantly affecting the outcomes and success rates <or=8F caliber.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the results of two different ureteroscopes in pediatric ureteroscopy (URS) procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-five consecutive URS procedures in pediatric population (39 males, 26 females) were retrospectively evaluated. The subjects were divided in two groups according to the type of ureteroscope used: Group 1 (n = 32, Wolf 8F) and group 2 (n = 33, ACMI 6.9F). All the procedures performed in both groups were statistically compared regarding patient age, gender, lateralization, complication rates, whether the procedure was diagnostic or therapeutic, and whether a guide-wire was used. Additionally, in cases with ureteral stones, stone clearance rate and the necessity of a stone extractor were also compared between the groups. All data were statistically analyzed using chi-square and t tests, where appropriate. A p value less than 0.05 was considered as significant. RESULTS: Mean age of the groups were comparable (9.44 +/- 4.3 and 8.67 +/- 3.9, p = 0.456). There was no statistically meaningful difference between the groups regarding patients' gender, lateralization rates, whether the procedure was diagnostic or therapeutic, the need for a guide-wire use, and complication rates (p > 0.05). In cases with ureteral stones, both groups exhibited statistically comparable results in stone clearance rates and the use of a stone extractor (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Data on this comparison demonstrated that both ureteroscopy devices in pediatric population can be used safely in URS procedures. Neither the diameter nor the rigidity is significantly affecting the outcomes and success rates <or=8F caliber.
Authors: Muhammet Fatih Kılınç; Ömer Gökhan Doluoğlu; Tolga Karakan; Ayhan Dalkılıç; Nurettin Cem Sönmez; Cem Nedim Yücetürk; Berkan Reşorlu Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2016-06
Authors: Murat Atar; Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar; Necmettin Penbegul; Haluk Soylemez; Mehmet Nuri Bodakci; Namik Kemal Hatipoglu; Yasar Bozkurt; Suleyman Cakmakci Journal: Urol Res Date: 2012-07-11
Authors: Gregory J Nason; Rebecca Headon; Matthew J Burke; Asadullah Aslam; Michael E Kelly; Subhasis K Giri; Hugh D Flood Journal: Curr Urol Date: 2015-05-20