Literature DB >> 20629566

Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience.

Elias S Hyams1, Ravi Munver, Vincent G Bird, Jayant Uberoi, Ojas Shah.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy (PCNL) is the current standard of care for management of large renal stones (>2 cm). Recent studies have evaluated flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS)/holmium laser lithotripsy as an alternative treatment for patients with contraindications to or preference against PCNL. Stones in an intermediate size range (2-3 cm) may be most amenable to URS/laser lithotripsy as definitive treatment in a single stage. We report a multi-institutional series of URS/laser lithotripsy for renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent URS/holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones that measured 2 to 3 cm were identified retrospectively at three tertiary care centers. Demographic information, disease characteristics, and perioperative and postoperative data were gathered. Patients with renal stone burdens of 2 to 3 cm who were treated by URS/laser lithotripsy and had at least one postoperative visit and imaging study were included. Stone clearance was evaluated using 0-2 mm and <4 mm residual stone burden on postoperative imaging.
RESULTS: One hundred and twenty patients underwent URS/holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones of 2 to 3 cm. Mean stone burden was 2.4 cm, and mean body mass index was 29.3 kg/m². Indications for URS/laser lithotripsy vs PCNL included patient preference (57), technical or anatomic factors (24), patient comorbidities (17), failed shockwave lithotripsy (9), patient body habitus (3), solitary kidney (3), chronic renal insufficiency (3), and strict anticoagulation (2). Thirty-one (26%) patients had stent placement preprocedure, and 94 (78%) patients underwent outpatient surgery. A ureteral access sheath was used in 67%. One hundred and one (84%) patients underwent single-stage procedures. There was one intraoperative complication (ureteral perforation), and there were eight minor postoperative complications (6.7%). The reoperation rate through the mean 18-month follow-up was 3/120 or 2.5%. Seventy-six (63%) patients had residual stone burden of 0 to 2 mm, and 100 (83%) patients had residual burden of <4 mm.
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that single-stage URS/holmium laser lithotripsy is effective for management of renal stones that measure 2 to 3 cm through intermediate follow-up. Staged procedures can be used selectively for technical reasons or disease factors. Although PCNL achieves superior stone clearance overall, URS/laser lithotripsy is a viable treatment option for selected patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20629566     DOI: 10.1089/end.2009.0629

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


  55 in total

Review 1.  Appropriate kidney stone size for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: When to switch to a percutaneous approach.

Authors:  Ryoji Takazawa; Sachi Kitayama; Toshihiko Tsujii
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2015-02-06

Review 2.  The role of open and laparoscopic stone surgery in the modern era of endourology.

Authors:  Michael S Borofsky; James E Lingeman
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  A comparative study to analyze the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy combined with holmium laser lithotripsy for residual calculi after percutaneous nephrolithotripsy.

Authors:  Gang Xu; Jiaming Wen; Zhongyi Li; Zhewei Zhang; Xiuqing Gong; Jimin Chen; Chuanjun Du
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-03-15

Review 4.  To Dust or Not To Dust: a Systematic Review of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy Techniques.

Authors:  Javier E Santiago; Adam B Hollander; Samit D Soni; Richard E Link; Wesley A Mayer
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 5.  Evaluation of dusting versus basketing - can new technologies improve stone-free rates?

Authors:  Brian Weiss; Ojas Shah
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 6.  Sky is no limit for ureteroscopy: extending the indications and special circumstances.

Authors:  Guido Giusti; Silvia Proietti; Roberto Peschechera; Gianluigi Taverna; Giuseppe Sortino; Luca Cindolo; Pierpaolo Graziotti
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Use of flexible ureteroscopy in the clinical practice for the treatment of renal stones: results from a large European survey conducted by the EAU Young Academic Urologists-Working Party on Endourology and Urolithiasis.

Authors:  F Sanguedolce; E Liatsikos; P Verze; S Hruby; A Breda; J D Beatty; T Knoll
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-03-28       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 8.  Ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy: technologic advancements.

Authors:  B Alexander; A I Fishman; M Grasso
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2-3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting.

Authors:  Jiahua Pan; Qi Chen; Wei Xue; Yonghui Chen; Lei Xia; Haige Chen; Yiran Huang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2012-12-23       Impact factor: 3.436

10.  Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of renal stones greater than 2 cm.

Authors:  Orhan Karakoç; Ahmet Karakeçi; Tunç Ozan; Fatih Fırdolaş; Cihat Tektaş; Şehmus Erdem Özkarataş; İrfan Orhan
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2015-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.