Lv Wen Zhang1, Xiang Fei1, Yan Song2. 1. Urology Division, Sheng Jing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110000, China. 2. Urology Division, Sheng Jing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110000, China. Alexander-song@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy of a novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic approach in the treatment of upper ureteral calculi and to compare it with traditional rigid and flexible ureteroscopic approaches. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 160 patients with impacted upper ureteral calculi were included in this study. 50 patients underwent rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy, 54 patients underwent flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy, and 56 patients underwent vacuum suction ureteroscopic lithotripsy. The operative time, length of hospitalization, stone-free rate, the incidence of postoperative complications, and total treatment cost were compared among the three groups. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the stone diameter over and below 1.5 cm. RESULTS: All operations were performed successfully, and there were no cases converted to open surgery. Compared with the other 2 groups, the vacuum suction ureteroscopy group had a higher stone-free rate at 3-5 days (90.0% vs. 61.9% vs. 55.6%, P < 0.05) and 1 month (96.4% vs. 77.7% vs. 74.0%, P < 0.05) postoperatively. In subgroup analysis, the stone-free rate of the vacuum suction ureteroscopy group was significantly higher when the stone diameter was > 1.5 cm at 1 month postoperatively (P < 0.05) compared with that in the other 2 groups; however, there were no differences in postoperative complications. (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic lithotripsy has significantly improved the stone-free rate especially in complicated cases, compared with that in rigid and flexible approaches; however, the complication and cost were not increased.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy of a novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic approach in the treatment of upper ureteral calculi and to compare it with traditional rigid and flexible ureteroscopic approaches. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 160 patients with impacted upper ureteral calculi were included in this study. 50 patients underwent rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy, 54 patients underwent flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy, and 56 patients underwent vacuum suction ureteroscopic lithotripsy. The operative time, length of hospitalization, stone-free rate, the incidence of postoperative complications, and total treatment cost were compared among the three groups. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the stone diameter over and below 1.5 cm. RESULTS: All operations were performed successfully, and there were no cases converted to open surgery. Compared with the other 2 groups, the vacuum suction ureteroscopy group had a higher stone-free rate at 3-5 days (90.0% vs. 61.9% vs. 55.6%, P < 0.05) and 1 month (96.4% vs. 77.7% vs. 74.0%, P < 0.05) postoperatively. In subgroup analysis, the stone-free rate of the vacuum suction ureteroscopy group was significantly higher when the stone diameter was > 1.5 cm at 1 month postoperatively (P < 0.05) compared with that in the other 2 groups; however, there were no differences in postoperative complications. (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic lithotripsy has significantly improved the stone-free rate especially in complicated cases, compared with that in rigid and flexible approaches; however, the complication and cost were not increased.
Authors: Glenn M Preminger; Hans-Göran Tiselius; Dean G Assimos; Peter Alken; A Colin Buck; Michele Gallucci; Thomas Knoll; James E Lingeman; Stephen Y Nakada; Margaret Sue Pearle; Kemal Sarica; Christian Türk; J Stuart Wolf Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Tuo Deng; Yiwen Chen; Bing Liu; M Pilar Laguna; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Xiaolu Duan; Wenqi Wu; Guohua Zeng Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Panagiotis Kallidonis; Panteleimon Ntasiotis; Thomas Knoll; Kemal Sarica; Athanasios Papatsoris; Bhaskar K Somani; Francesco Greco; Omar M Aboumarzouk; Mario Álvarez-Maestro; Francesco Sanguedolce Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-04-26
Authors: Elias S Hyams; Manoj Monga; Margaret S Pearle; Jodi A Antonelli; Michelle J Semins; Dean G Assimos; James E Lingeman; Vernon M Pais; Glenn M Preminger; Michael E Lipkin; Brian H Eisner; Ojas Shah; Roger L Sur; Patrick W Mufarrij; Brian R Matlaga Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 7.450