Literature DB >> 25417717

Ureteral wall thickness at the impacted ureteral stone site: a critical predictor for success rates after SWL.

Kemal Sarica1, Alper Kafkasli, Özgür Yazici, Ali Cihangir Çetinel, Mehmet Kutlu Demirkol, Murat Tuncer, Cahit Şahin, Bilal Eryildirim.   

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine the possible predictive value of certain patient- and stone-related factors on the stone-free rates and auxiliary procedures after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with impacted proximal ureteral calculi. A total of 111 patients (86 male, 25 females M/F: 3.44/1) with impacted proximal ureteral stones treated with shock wave lithotripsy were evaluated. Cases were retrieved from a departmental shock wave lithotripsy database. Variables analyzed included BMI of the case, diameter of proximal ureter and renal pelvis, stone size and Hounsfield unit, ureteral wall thickness at the impacted stone site. Stone-free status on follow-up imaging at 3 months was considered a successful outcome. All patients had a single impacted proximal ureteral stone. While the mean age of the cases was 46 ± 13 years (range 26-79 years), mean stone size was 8.95 mm (5.3-15.1 mm). Following shock wave lithotripsy although 87 patients (78.4%) were completely stone-free at 3-month follow-up visit, 24 (21.6%) cases had residual fragments requiring further repeat procedures. Prediction of the final outcome of SWL in patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones is a challenging issue and our data did clearly indicate a highly significant relationship between ureteral wall thickness and the success rates of shock wave lithotripsy particularly in cases requiring additional procedures. Of all the evaluated stone- and patient-related factors, only ureteral wall thickness at the impacted stone site independently predicted shock wave lithotripsy success.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25417717     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-014-0724-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   3.436


  27 in total

1.  Benefits of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy for the treatment of impacted ureteral stones.

Authors:  T Yagisawa; C Kobayashi; N Ishikawa; H Kobayashi; H Toma
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.942

2.  Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and intracorporeal lithotripsy for proximal ureteric calculi--a comparative assessment of efficacy and safety.

Authors:  Y K Fong; S H Ho; O H Peh; F C Ng; P H C Lim; P L C Quek; K K Ng
Journal:  Ann Acad Med Singapore       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.473

3.  Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted, large, proximal ureteral stones.

Authors:  Yung-Shun Juan; Jung-Tsung Shen; Ching-Chia Li; Chii-Jye Wang; Shu-Mien Chuang; Chun-Hsiung Huang; Wen-Jeng Wu
Journal:  Kaohsiung J Med Sci       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.744

4.  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

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

Authors:  Murat Binbay; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Avinash Singh; Tolga Akman; Erdem Tekinaslan; Omer Sarilar; Murat Baykal; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2011-04-09       Impact factor: 2.370

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.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in impacted upper ureteral stones: a prospective randomized comparison between stented and non-stented techniques.

Authors:  Islam A Ghoneim; Mohamed N El-Ghoneimy; Ashraf E El-Naggar; Khaled M Hammoud; Mohamed Y El-Gammal; Ahmed A Morsi
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 2.649

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
  10 in total

1.  Age-related delay in urinary stone clearance in elderly patients with solitary proximal ureteral calculi treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Osamu Ichiyanagi; Akira Nagaoka; Takuji Izumi; Yuko Kawamura; Tomoyuki Kato
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Study of ureteral and renal morphometry on the outcome of ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy: The critical role of maximum ureteral wall thickness at the site of ureteral stone impaction.

Authors:  Amit Kumar Mishra; Santosh Kumar; Lalgudi Narayan Dorairajan; Ramanitharan Manikandan; G Ramkumar; K S Sreerag; Jayesh Kumar Mittal
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2020-06-10

3.  Impaction of ureteral stones into the ureteral wall: Is it possible to predict?

Authors:  Kemal Sarica; Bilal Eryildirim; Cahit Sahin; Kubilay Sabuncu; Cihangir Cetinel; Fehmi Narter
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-12-11       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Impact of colic pain as a significant factor for predicting the stone free rate of one-session shock wave lithotripsy for treating ureter stones: a Bayesian logistic regression model analysis.

Authors:  Doo Yong Chung; Kang Su Cho; Dae Hun Lee; Jang Hee Han; Dong Hyuk Kang; Hae Do Jung; Jong Kyou Kown; Won Sik Ham; Young Deuk Choi; Joo Yong Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Characteristics and outcomes of ureteroscopic treatment in 2650 patients with impacted ureteral stones.

Authors:  Jaap D Legemate; Nienke J Wijnstok; Tadashi Matsuda; Willem Strijbos; Tibet Erdogru; Beat Roth; Hidefumi Kinoshita; Judith Palacios-Ramos; Roberto M Scarpa; Jean J de la Rosette
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Development and validation of a preoperative nomogram for predicting patients with impacted ureteral stone: a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Chenglu Wang; Lu Jin; Xinyang Zhao; Boxin Xue; Min Zheng
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2021-10-08       Impact factor: 2.264

7.  Using retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of impacted upper ureteric calculi.

Authors:  Bo Jia; Jiayuan Liu; Bo Hu; Zhaohui Chen
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2022-01

8.  The role of inflammatory serum markers and ureteral wall thickness on spontaneous passage of ureteral stone < 10 mm: A prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Ismaeel Aghaways; Rebaz Ibrahim; Rawa Bapir; Rawezh Q Salih; Karzan M Salih; Berwn A Abdulla
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2022-07-16

9.  Predictive value of ureteral wall thickness (UWT) assessment on the success of internal ureteral stent insertion in cases with obstructing ureteral calculi.

Authors:  Kemal Sarica; Bilal Eryildirim; Hakan Akdere; M Alı Karagoz; Yavuz Karaca; Ahmet Sahan
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 3.436

10.  Radiological noninvasive assessment of ureteral stone impaction into the ureteric wall: A critical evaluation with objective radiological parameters.

Authors:  Ozlem Elibol; Kadihan Yalcin Safak; Ayse Buz; Bilal Eryildirim; Kutluhan Erdem; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2017-07-31
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.