Literature DB >> 24824146

Ureteroscopic lithotripsy in Trendelenburg position for proximal ureteral calculi: a prospective, randomized, comparative study.

Jiahua Pan1, Wei Xue, Lei Xia, Hai Zhong, Yinchao Zhu, Zhebin Du, Qi Chen, Yiran Huang.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We conducted a prospective, randomized, comparative study to compare the clinical outcome between the Trendelenburg position ureteroscopic lithotripsy (tURSL) and the conventional position ureteroscopic lithotripsy (cURSL) for the management of single proximal ureteral stone.
METHODS: From January 2012 to September 2013, consecutive patients with single proximal ureteral calculi less than 2 cm and planned for ureteroscopic lithotripsy at our institution were enrolled in this study. The eligible patients were randomized into cURSL group and tURSL group according to sequence of random numbers generated by computer. In tURSL group, patients were turned into a Trendelenburg lithotomy position with head down 30° while the conventional lithotomy position was applied in cURSL group. URSL was performed using a 6/7.5F semi-rigid ureteroscope with holmium laser. When retropulsion occurred, the stones fragments were followed by semi-rigid ureteroscope up to the renal collecting system. The Olympus P5 flexible ureteroscope was used if there was any suspicion of stone migration into lower calices or incomplete stone fragmentation by semi-rigid ureteroscope. Patients' demographics between the two groups, perioperative course, clinical outcome and complication rates were compared. Data were analyzed using Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test or Student's t test. Binary logistic regression analysis was applied to estimate the effects of surgical position and stone size on stone migration.
RESULTS: A total of 355 cases were finally analyzed in this study (176 in cURSL group and 179 in tURSL group). The mean operative time was significantly prolonged in cURSL group than in tURSL group, while the stone-free rate (SFR) at 4 weeks was significantly higher in tURSL group. A statistically significant difference was found in stone migration rate between the two groups (26.7 vs. 43.6 %, P = 0.001). In the stone migration subsetting, less stones fragments were found to migrate into lower calices in tURSL stone migration subgroup (P = 0.000). Also, the flexible ureteroscope utilization as well as the operative time was significantly decreased in tURSL stone migration subgroup (25.5 vs. 72.3 %, P = 0.000), (44.96 ± 11.0 min vs. 59.17 ± 9.2 min, P = 0.000) with higher SFR after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) (96.2 vs. 74.5 %, P = 0.000).
CONCLUSION: The tURSL was safe and highly efficacious for the management of proximal ureteral calculus, especially in nonobese patient. Even with important stone migration risk, it rendered higher SFR and less operative time compared with cURSL. Moreover, less utilization of flexible ureteroscope and decreased deflection time in tURSL could potentially reduce the medical cost.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24824146     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-014-0732-z

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


  24 in total

1.  A randomized prospective controlled study for assessment of different ureteral occlusion devices in prevention of stone migration during pneumatic lithotripsy.

Authors:  Yasser A Farahat; Abd-Elhamid M Elbahnasy; Osama M Elashry
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Stone retropulsion during holmium:YAG lithotripsy.

Authors:  Ho Lee; R Tres Ryan; Joel M H Teichman; Jeehyun Kim; Bernard Choi; Navanit V Arakeri; A J Welch
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy.

Authors:  J W Collins; F X Keeley; A Timoney
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 4.  NTrap in prevention of stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hui Ding; Zhiping Wang; Wan Du; Hongjuan Zhang
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Flexible ureteroscopy in conjunction with in situ lithotripsy for lower pole calculi.

Authors:  B K Hollenbeck; T G Schuster; G J Faerber; J S Wolf
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi.

Authors:  Vincent Koo; Michael Young; Trevor Thompson; Brian Duggan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Management of upper urinary tract calculi with ureteroscopic techniques.

Authors:  E R Tawfiek; D H Bagley
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Simultaneous saline irrigation during retrograde rigid ureteroscopic lasertripsy for the prevention of proximal calculus migration.

Authors:  Lu Sun; Fang-Li Peng
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Retrograde ureteroscopy for renal stones larger than 2.5 cm.

Authors:  Julie M Riley; Laura Stearman; Scott Troxel
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Holmium:YAG laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy for ureteric calculi in children: predictive factors for complications and success.

Authors:  Mohammed S Elsheemy; Ahmed Maher; Khaled Mursi; Ahmed M Shouman; Ahmed I Shoukry; Hany A Morsi; Alaa Meshref
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-08-25       Impact factor: 4.226

View more
  6 in total

1.  The application of a single-use fiberoptic flexible ureteroscope for the management of upper urinary calculi.

Authors:  Feng Wang; Yu Yang; Honde Chen; Hang Huang; Weiping Huang; Zhiliang Weng; Hui Xie
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 2.  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

3.  The use of 14/16Fr ureter access sheath for safe and effective management of large upper ureteral calculi.

Authors:  Arman Tsaturyan; George Kalogeropoulos; Marco Lattarulo; Constantinos Adamou; Konstantinos Pagonis; Angelis Peteinaris; Despoina Liourdi; Theofanis Vrettos; Evangelos Liatsikos; Panagiotis Kallidonis
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-02-12       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  'Boxing in the corner': A modified retrograde approach for the management of proximal ureteric stones of 1-2 cm.

Authors:  Omar Farid Elgebaly; Hussein Abdeldaeim; Tamer Abouyoussif; Ahmed Mahmoud Fahmy; Faisal Edris; Abdelrahman Zahran; Akram Assem
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2021-02-02

5.  Consultation on kidney stones, Copenhagen 2019: aspects of intracorporeal lithotripsy in flexible ureterorenoscopy.

Authors:  Søren Kissow Lildal; Kim Hovgaard Andreassen; Joyce Baard; Marianne Brehmer; Matthew Bultitude; Ylva Eriksson; Khurshid R Ghani; Helene Jung; Guido Kamphuis; Peter Kronenberg; Ben Turney; Olivier Traxer; Øyvind Ulvik; Palle Jörn Sloth Osther
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Is there any predictive value of the ratio of the upper to the lower diameter of the ureter for ureteral stone impaction?

Authors:  Deniz Abat; Ali Börekoğlu; Adem Altunkol; Ilgaz Çağatay Köse; Mehmet Salih Boğa
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2021-05-20
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.