Literature DB >> 24035032

Comparison of different ureteroscope sizes in treating ureteral calculi in adult patients.

Gokhan Atis1, Ozgur Arikan, Cenk Gurbuz, Asıf Yildirim, Bülent Erol, Sabri Pelit, Ismail Ulus, Turhan Caskurlu.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the success and complication rates of a 4.5-6.5F semirigid ureteroscope (S-URS) with an 8.5-11.5F S-URS in treating ureteral stones in adult patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients with ureteral stones, who were treated with 4.5-6.5F S-URS (group 1) and 52 patients who were treated with 8.5-11.5F S-URS (group 2) were compared retrospectively using a matched-pair analysis. The size, lateralization, location, and impaction of the stones and also the patient age, gender, body mass index, and the presence of hydronephrosis were used as the matching parameters. The stones were fragmented with Holmium-YAG laser.
RESULTS: The matching parameters were comparable between the 2 groups. The stone-free rates were 88.5% in group 1 and 84.6% in group 2 (P = .566) after a single procedure. The mean operative times for groups 1 and 2 were 32.7 ± 5.8 and 30.2 ± 5.4 minutes, respectively (P = .06). Postoperative hematuria was detected in 1.9% and 13.5% of patients in groups 1 and 2 (P = .027). Ureteral balloon dilation was needed in 1.9% and 15.4% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = .015). Mucosal injury was observed in 1.9% and 13.5% of the patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = .027). No major complications were noted in either group.
CONCLUSION: Although the stone-free rates and operative times were similar between the 2 groups, a 4.5-6.5F ureteroscope can reduce the need for ureteral balloon dilation and some minor complications, such as mucosal injury and postoperative hematuria, in adult patients.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24035032     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  The effect of ureteroscope size in the treatment of ureteral stone: 15-year experience of an endoscopist.

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

Review 3.  Update of the ICUD-SIU consultation on stone technology behind ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Jonathan Cloutier; Ken Anson; Guido Giusti; Michael Grasso; Guido Kamphuis; Sven Lahme; Evangelos Liatsikos; Anup Patel; Margaret S Pearle; Luc Valiquette; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Experience of retaining encrusted ureteral stents: URL by 4.5/6.5F ureteroscope can reduce the possibility of PCNL.

Authors:  Zhaohui He; Hanqi Lei; Caixia Zhang; Hangtao Wang; Fucai Tang; Guohua Zeng
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Randomized comparison of 4.5/6 Fr versus 6/7.5 Fr ureteroscopes for laser lithotripsy of lower/middle ureteral calculi: towards optimization of efficacy and safety of semirigid ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Mohamed Omar; Mohammed Dorrah; Ahmed Khalifa; Eid El Sherif; Khalid Sayedahmed; Yahya Ghazwani; Yasser A Noureldin
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-10-08       Impact factor: 3.661

Review 6.  Prevention strategies for ureteral stricture following ureteroscopic lithotripsy.

Authors:  Hao Dong; Yonghan Peng; Ling Li; Xiaofeng Gao
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2017-09-22

7.  Is the 4.5-F ureteroscope (Ultra-Thin) an alternative in the management of ureteric and renal pelvic stones?

Authors:  Hakkı Uzun; Nezih Akça
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2018-06-21

8.  The Innovative Use of Ureter Catheter in the Surgery of Obstructive Uropathy.

Authors:  Xiangcheng Zhan; Ding Liu; Guangchun Wang; Haimin Zhang; Aimaitiaji Kadier; Xudong Yao; Yunfei Xu
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 2.238

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.