Literature DB >> 21050026

Redefining the limits of flexible ureterorenoscopy.

Muddassar Hussain1, Peter Acher, Branamir Penev, Mark Cynk.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Flexible ureterorenoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy allows retrograde management of renal calculi that previously needed alternative strategies. This study assesses the influences of stone size, density, and location on treatment outcomes from a large series. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data concerning patients who presented for ureterorenoscopic laser lithotripsy between May 2005 and September 2008 were retrospectively analyzed. Single-treatment success was defined as satisfactory visual clearance of stone bulk, radiopacities less than 2 mm on noncontrast CT, and no further treatment.
RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-five patients had 236 treatments (median=51 years; range 18-83 years). Overall success rate was 90.7%. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) stone size was 13.1 ± 8.5 mm with significant differences between the successful (11.6 ± 6.7 mm) and nonsuccessful (27.8 ± 10.0 mm) outcome groups (P<0.0001, unpaired t test). Of treatments for stone size ≤ 20 mm, 96.5% were successful. Of 36 patients with stone size >20 mm, 21 (58.3%) were stone free after one treatment and 31 (86.1%) after two treatments. Hounsfield unit data did not differ significantly between the groups (mean ± SD 858 ± 388 vs 1115 ± 643, P=0.146, unpaired t test). Stone locations were: Renal pelvis, caliceal diverticula, and upper pole, midpolar, and lower pole in 61, 9, 24, 27, and 115 cases with success rates of 85%, 100%, 83%, 93%, and 94%, respectively (P=0.899, chi-square test).
CONCLUSION: Clearance rates of >90% can be achieved for stones up to 20 mm with flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy, but with larger stones, the stone-free rates reduce significantly. Therefore, 20 mm should be regarded as the upper limit of stone size that can be cleared in a single procedure. Stone density and location do not influence outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21050026     DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0236

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


  22 in total

Review 1.  [Benign prostatic hyperplasia and urolithiasis].

Authors:  T Knoll; R Hofmann; K Höfner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Does previous failed ESWL have a negative impact of on the outcome of ureterorenoscopy? A matched pair analysis.

Authors:  Prodromos Philippou; David Payne; Kim Davenport; Anthony G Timoney; Francis X Keeley
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  External validation of Resorlu-Unsal stone score as predictor of outcomes after retrograde intrarenal surgery.

Authors:  Stavros Sfoungaristos; Ofer N Gofrit; Ioannis Mykoniatis; Ezekiel H Landau; Ioannis Katafigiotis; Dov Pode; Constantinos A Constantinides; Mordechai Duvdevani
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  Ultra-mini PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy: a matched analysis of treatment costs (endoscopes and disposables) in patients with renal stones 10-20 mm.

Authors:  Martin Schoenthaler; Konrad Wilhelm; Simon Hein; Fabian Adams; Daniel Schlager; Ulrich Wetterauer; Azad Hawizy; Andreas Bourdoumis; Janak Desai; Arkadiusz Miernik
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  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

6.  [Patient radiation exposure during ureteroscopic stone extraction].

Authors:  G Zöller; P Virsik-Köpp; C Vowinkel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  Influence of the renal lower pole anatomy and mid-renal-zone classification in successful approach to the calices during flexible ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Bruno Marroig; Rodrigo Frota; Marco A Fortes; Francisco J Sampaio; Luciano Alves Favorito
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 1.246

8.  Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus miniaturized PNL for solitary renal calculi of 10-30 mm size.

Authors:  Thomas Knoll; Jan Peter Jessen; Patrick Honeck; Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-10-29       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  The comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for stones larger than 2 cm in patients with a solitary kidney: a matched-pair analysis.

Authors:  Guohua Zeng; Wei Zhu; Jiasheng Li; Zhijian Zhao; Tao Zeng; Chenli Liu; Yang Liu; Jian Yuan; Shaw P Wan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.