Literature DB >> 26662172

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

Kemal Sarica1, Bilal Eryildirim2, Cahit Sahin1, Kubilay Sabuncu1, Cihangir Cetinel1, Fehmi Narter1.   

Abstract

To determine the possible predictive value of certain acute phase reactants CRP and ESR as well as radiologic parameters on the degree of impaction in ureteral stones. A total of 80 adult patients with a single opaque proximal ureteral stone were evaluated. A non-contrast CT was performed in all cases and all possible radiologic predictive parameters calculated. Additionally, to outline the degree of impaction at the stone site, two serum acute phase reactants namely CRP and ESR levels were also assessed. Patients were divided into two groups as follows; Group 1 (n:42) patients with normal CRP levels and Group 2 (n:38) patients with elevated levels of CRP. The data obtained in the subgroups were first comparatively evaluated with radiological parameters and the possible correlation between CRP values and these parameters was well evaluated. While the serum CRP levels were normal in 42 cases, they were elevated in 38 cases. Evaluation of the data from CRP subgroups and radiologic parameters showed that elevated levels of serum CRP were closely related with mean values of ureteral wall thickness (UWT) as well as mean level of hydronephrosis with a statistically significant difference. Additionally, a correlation analysis between serum CRP levels and all other parameters mentioned above demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between UWT, degree of hydronephrosis and serum ESR values. Evaluation of serum CRP and ESR values could let us to predict the UWT, a parameter which is closely related with the degree of stone impaction.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CRP; ESR; Impaction; Ureteral stone

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26662172     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-015-0850-9

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


  15 in total

Review 1.  Treatment selection and outcomes: ureteral calculi.

Authors:  J Stuart Wolf
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.241

2.  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

3.  Predictive parameters for medical expulsive therapy in ureteral stones: a critical evaluation.

Authors:  Cahit Sahin; Bilal Eryildirim; Alper Kafkasli; Alper Coskun; Fatih Tarhan; Gokhan Faydaci; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-03-29       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Association of overactive bladder and C-reactive protein levels. Results from the Boston Area Community Health (BACH) Survey.

Authors:  Varant Kupelian; Raymond C Rosen; Claus G Roehrborn; Pradeep Tyagi; Michael B Chancellor; John B McKinlay
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Endoscopic features of impacted ureteral stones.

Authors:  Soichi Mugiya; Toshiki Ito; Satoshi Maruyama; Shinsuke Hadano; Hiroshi Nagae
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Comparative evaluation of Swiss LithoClast 2 and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted upper-ureteral stones.

Authors:  T Manohar; Arvind Ganpule; Mahesh Desai
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Management of the impacted ureteral calculus.

Authors:  A Morgentaler; S S Bridge; S P Dretler
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1990-02       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
  4 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.