Farzad Allameh1, Mohammadreza Razzaghi2, Morteza Fallah-Karkan2, Behnam Hosseini3, Ali Tayyebi Azar4, Arash Ranjbar2, Amir Hossein Rahavian2, Saleh Ghiasy2,5. 1. Center of Excellence for Training Laser Applications in Medicine, Shohada-e-Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Health, Tehran, Iran. 2. Laser Application in Medical Sciences Research Center, Shohada-e-Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Akhtar Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. Nephrology and Kidney Transplant Research Center, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran. 5. Department of Urology, Shohada-e-Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Introduction: Transurethral lithotripsy (TUL) is an appropriate treatment for ureteral stones and is usually used for stones in the middle and lower part of the ureter. Different devices such as the Holmium laser, the stone basket, and the stone cone exist to prevent any fragments from retropulsion during TUL. The present study aims to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the Holmium laser, the stone basket, and the stone cone. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted from September 2016 to January 2018 comparing various TUL methods in 88 subjects with proximal ureteral calculi. The study participants were divided into 4 matched groups. The first one included 20 patients undergoing TUL with no device (group 1), the second group included 22 patients undergoing TUL while using the stone retrieval basket, the third group included 18 patients undergoing TUL while utilizing the stone cone and the fourth group included 28 patients undergoing TUL while using the Hol-YAG laser. Results: A residual stone ≥3 mm was recorded in 15.9% of the patients. The stone free rate was seen in 100%, 90.9, 83.3%, and 55% of the Holmium laser group, the retrieval basket group, the stone cone group and the no device group respectively (P=0.001). The lowest rate of surgery complications including ureteral perforation, post-operative fever, and mucosal damage between the 4 groups (P=0.003) and the highest time of surgery (P=0.001) belonged to the laser group. If we want to ignore the laser group, the success rate for lithotripsy was better in both groups with a stone retrieval device compared to the no device group, but no advantage existed between the stone basket and the stone cone. Conclusion: We can safely conclude that lasers significantly help to prevent stone migration during TUL. If we want to ignore the laser group, the success rate for lithotripsy was significantly better in both groups with a stone retrieval device compared to the no device group, but no advantage existed between the stone basket and the stone cone.
Introduction: Transurethral lithotripsy (TUL) is an appropriate treatment for ureteral stones and is usually used for stones in the middle and lower part of the ureter. Different devices such as the Holmium laser, the stone basket, and the stone cone exist to prevent any fragments from retropulsion during TUL. The present study aims to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the Holmium laser, the stone basket, and the stone cone. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted from September 2016 to January 2018 comparing various TUL methods in 88 subjects with proximal ureteral calculi. The study participants were divided into 4 matched groups. The first one included 20 patients undergoing TUL with no device (group 1), the second group included 22 patients undergoing TUL while using the stone retrieval basket, the third group included 18 patients undergoing TUL while utilizing the stone cone and the fourth group included 28 patients undergoing TUL while using the Hol-YAG laser. Results: A residual stone ≥3 mm was recorded in 15.9% of the patients. The stone free rate was seen in 100%, 90.9, 83.3%, and 55% of the Holmium laser group, the retrieval basket group, the stone cone group and the no device group respectively (P=0.001). The lowest rate of surgery complications including ureteral perforation, post-operative fever, and mucosal damage between the 4 groups (P=0.003) and the highest time of surgery (P=0.001) belonged to the laser group. If we want to ignore the laser group, the success rate for lithotripsy was better in both groups with a stone retrieval device compared to the no device group, but no advantage existed between the stone basket and the stone cone. Conclusion: We can safely conclude that lasers significantly help to prevent stone migration during TUL. If we want to ignore the laser group, the success rate for lithotripsy was significantly better in both groups with a stone retrieval device compared to the no device group, but no advantage existed between the stone basket and the stone cone.
Authors: Charles G Marguet; Jeff C Sung; W Patrick Springhart; James O L'Esperance; Songlin Zhou; Pei Zhong; David M Albala; Glenn M Preminger Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mahesh R Desai; Sanjiv B Patel; Mihir M Desai; Rajesh Kukreja; Ravindra B Sabnis; Rasesh M Desai; Snehal H Patel Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 7.450