Literature DB >> 23914262

Emergency versus elective ureteroscopic treatment of ureteral stones.

Yousef S Matani1, Mohammed A Al-Ghazo, Rami S Al-Azab, Osamah Bani Hani, Ibrahim F Ghalayini, Ibrahim Bani Hani.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This retrospective study investigates the role of the emergency ureteroscopic (URS) approach in the definitive treatment of ureteric stones.
METHODS: We reviewed all patients admitted for ureteric stones from May 2003 to December 2010. Those who underwent URS stone treatment were selected and stratified into emergency (EMG) and elective groups (ELG). Emergency URS is defined as URS being performed within 24 hours of admission to the emergency room. The main indication for emergency treatment was refractory ureteric colic in spite of narcotic analgesia. Both groups were statistically compared in terms of their patient-, stone- and outcome-related variables. The overall success rate was defined by the clearance of the stone and/or presence of residual fragments (<3 mm) at the end of 4-week follow-up period.
RESULTS: In total, 903 patients were suitable for analysis with 244 and 659 patients in the EMG and ELG, respectively. Age, sex and comorbidities were comparable in both groups. Average ages were 43.4 ± 15.31 and 45.6 ± 13.24 years among EMG and ELG, respectively. Stones had an average size of 0.92 ± 0.49 (in the EMG group) and 0.96 ± 0.53 cm (in the ELG group). We found that 61.1% and 65.7% of stones were distally located in the EMG and ELG, respectively. EMG had a longer operative time (69 ± 21.03 vs. 57 ± 13.45 minutes) with comparable average hospital stays (1.9 days). Intra-operative double-J stents or ureteric catheter insertion was noted in 72.5 and 67.7% of EMG and ELG, respectively. The overall complication rates were reported in 13.1% in EMG and 14.4% in ELG. A higher rate of ureteric injuries (early and late) was documented in the EMG group (7% vs. 5.6%). Most of these injuries were minor and manageable without additional procedure and/or general anesthesia. Success was achieved in 90.6% and 91.8% of the EMG and ELG groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION: With recent advances in technology, the growing trend toward one-stage definitive treatment, patient acceptability and rising concerns over financial aspects, emergency URS treatment of ureteric stones is evolving as a standard initial management option.

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 23914262      PMCID: PMC3713144          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.1402

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  28 in total

1.  Complications of ureteroscopy: analysis of predictive factors.

Authors:  T G Schuster; B K Hollenbeck; G J Faerber; J S Wolf
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 2.  Clinical practice. Acute renal colic from ureteral calculus.

Authors:  Joel M H Teichman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-02-12       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  Contemporary management of ureteral stones.

Authors:  Markus J Bader; Brian Eisner; Francesco Porpiglia; Glen M Preminger; Hans-Goran Tiselius
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-01-14       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 4.  The contemporary management of renal and ureteric calculi.

Authors:  David J Galvin; Margaret S Pearle
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Emergency ureteroscopic management of ureteral stones: why not?

Authors:  Luis Osorio; Estevao Lima; José Soares; Riccardo Autorino; Rui Versos; Arnaldo Lhamas; Filinto Marcelo
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Emergency ureteroscopic lithotripsy in acute renal colic caused by ureteral calculi: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Mohammed A Al-Ghazo; Ibrahim Fathi Ghalayini; Rami S Al-Azab; Osamah Bani Hani; Ibrahim Bani-Hani; Mohammad Abuharfil; Yazan Haddad
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2011-04-17

7.  Randomized prospective trial comparing immediate versus delayed ureteroscopy for patients with ureteral calculi and normal renal function who present to the emergency department.

Authors:  Stefano Guercio; Alessandra Ambu; Francesco Mangione; Mauro Mari; Francesca Vacca; Maurizio Bellina
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 2.942

8.  Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  John S Lam; Tricia D Greene; Mantu Gupta
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Combined retrograde flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy with holmium YAG laser for renal calculi associated with ipsilateral ureteral stones.

Authors:  Marcello Cocuzza; Jose R Colombo; Arvind Ganpule; Burak Turna; Antonio Cocuzza; Divyar Dhawan; Bruno Santos; Eduardo Mazzucchi; Miguel Srougi; Mahesh Desai; Mihir Desai
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Ureteroscopic management of lower ureteric calculi: a 15-year single-centre experience.

Authors:  Osama M Elashry; Abdelnaser K Elgamasy; Magdy A Sabaa; Mohamed Abo-Elenien; Mohamed Adel Omar; Hassan H Eltatawy; Shawky A El-Abd
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Acute management of stones: when to treat or not to treat?

Authors:  Helene Jung; Palle J S Osther
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies.

Authors:  Davide Arcaniolo; Marco De Sio; Jens Rassweiler; Jilian Nicholas; Estevão Lima; Giuseppe Carrieri; Evangelos Liatsikos; Vincenzo Mirone; Manoj Monga; Riccardo Autorino
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-02-23       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone.

Authors:  Abdullatif Al-Terki; Majd Alkabbani; Talal A Alenezi; Tariq F Al-Shaiji; Shabir Al-Mousawi; Ahmed R El-Nahas
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2020-08-25
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.