Literature DB >> 21479563

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

Murat Binbay1, Abdulkadir Tepeler, Avinash Singh, Tolga Akman, Erdem Tekinaslan, Omer Sarilar, Murat Baykal, Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We prospectively analyzed and compared the effectiveness and complications of pneumatic lithotripter with a holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser for the ureterorenoscopic management of impacted ureteral stones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2006 to January 2008, we performed retrograde endoscopic treatment in 288 patients with ureteral stones in our clinic. The patients with impacted stones were randomized into two groups according to the lithotripter used to fragment the stone: pneumatic (n = 40) and laser (n = 40). The preoperative, operative, and post-operative follow-up findings were analyzed and compared.
RESULTS: The average stone size was similar in both groups (118.8 ± 58.3 mm(2) vs. 110.7 ± 54.4 mm(2)). The calculi were located in the distal ureter in most of the patients in both groups (65% in pneumatic group and 52.5% in laser group). The operation time was significantly diminished in the laser group (P = 0.001). The stone-free rates after a single ureteroscopic procedure were 80 and 97.5% in the pneumatic and laser groups, respectively (P = 0.03). Auxiliary treatments were needed in seven patients in the pneumatic group, while only one patient in the laser group (P = 0.05) needed this treatment. After the additional procedures, a 100% success rate was achieved in both groups. The rate of double J stent insertion was significantly higher in the pneumatic group (P = 0.01). In the pneumatic group, four cases of stone up-migration and one case of post-operative stricture were seen, whereas only one case of stone up-migration was noted in the laser group.
CONCLUSION: Our comparative study has shown that the use of Ho:YAG as an intracorporeal lithotripter during ureteroscopic management of impacted ureteral stones is highly efficient with high success rates, regardless of the stone location.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21479563     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-011-9951-8

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


  21 in total

1.  Re: Khairy-Salem et al.: Semirigid ureteroscopy in management of large proximal ureteral calculi: is there still a role in developing countries? (Urology 2011;77:1064-1068).

Authors:  Apul Goel; Swarnendu Mandal
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 2.  Urologic applications of the Holmium laser.

Authors:  J W Dushinski; J E Lingeman
Journal:  Tech Urol       Date:  1997

3.  Ureteral stricture formation after removal of impacted calculi.

Authors:  W W Roberts; J A Cadeddu; S Micali; L R Kavoussi; R G Moore
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  The stone cone: a new generation of basketry.

Authors:  S P Dretler
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  Laser lithotripsy.

Authors:  Joel M H Teichman
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.309

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

Authors:  Xiaowen Sun; Shujie Xia; Jun Lu; Haitao Liu; Bangmin Han; Weiguo Li
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Management and follow-up of impacted ureteral stones.

Authors:  C Deliveliotis; M Chrisofos; S Albanis; E Serafetinides; J Varkarakis; V Protogerou
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.089

8.  An algorithm for the management of ureteral calculi.

Authors:  S P Dretler; M A Keating; J Riley
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 9.  Current state and future developments of noninvasive treatment of human urinary stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  C G Chaussy; G J Fuchs
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Experience with impacted upper ureteral stones; should we abandon using semirigid ureteroscopes and pneumatic lithoclast?

Authors:  Ehab Elganainy; Diaa A Hameed; Ma Elgammal; Alaa A Abd-Elsayed; M Shalaby
Journal:  Int Arch Med       Date:  2009-05-03
View more
  20 in total

1.  Comparing the efficacy and safety of 365- and 550-μm laser fibers in semirigid ureteroscopic Ho:YAG lithotripsy.

Authors:  Stavros Sfoungaristos; Ofer N Gofrit; Ioannis Katafigiotis; Dov Pode; Ezekiel H Landau; Vladimir Yutkin; Constantinos A Constantinides; Mordechai Duvdevani
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  CUA Guideline: Management of ureteral calculi.

Authors:  Michael Ordon; Sero Andonian; Brian Blew; Trevor Schuler; Ben Chew; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  Role of lasers in urology.

Authors:  Stephan M Korn; Nicolai A Hübner; Christian Seitz; Shahrokh F Shariat; Harun Fajkovic
Journal:  Photochem Photobiol Sci       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 3.982

4.  Pneumatic versus laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a comparison of initial outcomes and cost.

Authors:  Aslan Demir; Mert Ali Karadağ; Kurşat Ceçen; Mehmet Uslu; Omer Erkam Arslan
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 2.370

5.  Laser Versus Pneumatic Lithotripsy With Semi-Rigid Ureteroscope; A Comparative Randomized Study.

Authors:  Seyed Mohammadreza Rabani; Seyedhossein Rabani; Najmeh Rashidi
Journal:  J Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2019-07-06

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

Review 7.  Pushing the boundaries of ureteroscopy: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Petrisor Geavlete; Razvan Multescu; Bogdan Geavlete
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 8.  Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Ureteric Stones - State-of-the-Art Review.

Authors:  Radhika Bhanot; Patrick Jones; Bhaskar Somani
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2021-05-06

9.  Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy.

Authors:  Mostafa Khalil
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2013-04

Review 10.  Recent finding and new technologies in nephrolitiasis: a review of the recent literature.

Authors:  Marco Rosa; Paolo Usai; Roberto Miano; Fernando J Kim; Enrico Finazzi Agrò; Pierluigi Bove; Salvatore Micali
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2013-02-16       Impact factor: 2.264

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.