Literature DB >> 24282455

The comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stones.

M D Ufuk Ozturk1, Nevzat Can Sener, H N Goksel Goktug, Adnan Gucuk, Ismail Nalbant, M Abdurrahim Imamoglu.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In this study we compare the success rates and complication rates of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), laparoscopic, and ureteroscopic approaches for large (between 1 and 2 cm) proximal ureteral stones.
METHODS: In total, 151 patients with ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm in diameter were randomized into 3 groups (52 SWL, 51 laparoscopy and 48 retrograde intrarenal surgery [RIRS]). The groups were compared for stone size, success rates, and complication rates using the modified Clavien grading system.
RESULTS: Stone burden of the groups were similar (p = 0.36). The success rates were 96%, 81% and 79%, respectively in the laparoscopy, SWL, and ureteroscopy groups. The success rate in laparoscopy group was significantly higher (p < 0.05). When these groups were compared for complication rates, RIRS seemed to be the group with the lowest complication rates (4.11%) (p < 0.05). SWL and laparoscopy seem to have similar rates of complication (7.06% and 7.86%, respectively, p = 0.12).
INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the results of laparoscopy, SWL and RIRS in ureteral stones. Our results showed that in management of patients with upper ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm, laparoscopy is the most successful method based on its stone-free rates and acceptable complication rates. However, the limitations of our study are lack of hospital stay and cost-effectiveness data. Also, studies conducted on larger populations should support our findings. When a less invasive method is the only choice, SWL and flexible ureterorenoscopy methods have similar success rates. RIRS, however, has a lower complication rate than the other approaches.

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 24282455      PMCID: PMC3840519          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.346

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


  17 in total

1.  Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.

Authors:  A Raboy; G S Ferzli; R Ioffreda; P S Albert
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Outcomes of ureteroscopy for the management of impacted ureteral calculi with different localizations.

Authors:  Tansu Degirmenci; Bulent Gunlusoy; Zafer Kozacioglu; Murat Arslan; Cengiz Kara; Omer Koras; Suleyman Minareci
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Which is the best option to treat large (>1.5 cm) midureteric calculi?

Authors:  Suparu Khaladkar; Jayesh Modi; Manish Bhansali; Satyen Dobhada; Suresh Patankar
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.878

4.  [Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). Our experience].

Authors:  A Frattini; S Ferretti; F Arena; M Larosa; P Cortellini
Journal:  Acta Biomed Ateneo Parmense       Date:  1995

5.  Ureteral Stones Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. The American Urological Association.

Authors:  J W Segura; G M Preminger; D G Assimos; S P Dretler; R I Kahn; J E Lingeman; J N Macaluso
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  [Rupture of the spleen and acute pancreatitis after ESWL therapy: a rare complication].

Authors:  Z Kastelan; D Derezic; J Pasini; R Stern-Padovan; M Skegro; D Mrazovac; H Sosic
Journal:  Aktuelle Urol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 0.658

7.  Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy.

Authors:  Antonio Corrêa Lopes Neto; Fernando Korkes; Jarques Lúcio Silva; Rodrigo Dal Moro Amarante; Mario H Elias Mattos; Marcos Tobias-Machado; Antonio Carlos Lima Pompeo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Is it necessary to place a Double J catheter after laparoscopic ureterolithotomy? A four-year experience.

Authors:  Hossein Karami; Babak Javanmard; Amin Hasanzadeh-Hadah; Mohammad Mohsen Mazloomfard; Behzad Lotfi; Reza Mohamadi; Mohammad Yaghoobi
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Ureteral stones: SWL treatment.

Authors:  Gianpaolo Zanetti
Journal:  Arch Ital Urol Androl       Date:  2011-03

10.  Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients.

Authors:  Stefano C M Picozzi; Cristian Ricci; Maddalena Gaeta; Stefano Casellato; Robert Stubinski; Dario Ratti; Giorgio Bozzini; Luca Carmignani
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2012-06-15
View more
  8 in total

1.  Comparison of the clinical efficacy and safety of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy in the treatment of obstructive upper ureteral calculi with concurrent urinary tract infections.

Authors:  Jun-Tao Jiang; Wei-Guo Li; Yi-Ping Zhu; Wen-Lan Sun; Wei Zhao; Yuan Ruan; Chen Zhong; Kristofer Wood; Hai-Bin Wei; Shu-Jie Xia; Xiao-Wen Sun
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 3.161

2.  Minimally invasive surgical treatment for large impacted upper ureteral stones: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Authors:  Ibrahim Halil Bozkurt; Tarik Yonguc; Burak Arslan; Tansu Degirmenci; Bulent Gunlusoy; Ozgu Aydogdu; Omer Koras
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm.

Authors:  Yuan Shao; Da-wei Wang; Guo-liang Lu; Zhou-jun Shen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  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

5.  Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy.

Authors:  Selçuk Şahin; Bekir Aras; Mithat Ekşi; Nevzat Can Şener; Volkan Tugču
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

6.  Efficacy and safety of various surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stone ≥10mm: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yaxuan Wang; Xueliang Chang; Jingdong Li; Zhenwei Han
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2020 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.541

7.  Flexible Ureteroscopy Can Be More Efficacious in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones in Select Patients.

Authors:  Erdal Alkan; Ali Sarıbacak; Ahmet Oguz Ozkanli; Mehmet Murad Basar; Oguz Acar; Mevlana Derya Balbay
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2015-11-04

Review 8.  Semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large upper ureteral stones: a meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Fabio C M Torricelli; Manoj Monga; Giovanni S Marchini; Miguel Srougi; William C Nahas; Eduardo Mazzucchi
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.541

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.