Mohamed Omar1, Mohammed Dorrah2, Ahmed Khalifa2, Eid El Sherif2, Khalid Sayedahmed2,3, Yahya Ghazwani4, Yasser A Noureldin4,5. 1. Department of Urology, Menoufia University, Shibin El Kom, Egypt. kimo_81eg@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Urology, Menoufia University, Shibin El Kom, Egypt. 3. Department of Urology, Rhein-Maas Hospital, Wuerselen, Germany. 4. Division of Urology, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 5. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha, Egypt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare 4.5/6 Fr versus 6/7.5 Fr semirigid ureteroscopes in terms of safety and efficacy in adult non-obese patients with middle or lower ureteric stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 198 patients with middle/lower ureteric stone and a BMI ≤ 30 kg/m2 were recruited. Patients were randomized according to the size of ureteroscope into two groups: group 1 where a 4.5/6 Fr semi-rigid ureteroscope was used, and group 2 where a 6/7.5 Fr semi-rigid ureteroscope was used. Patient's demographic, stone characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes including stone-free rate (SFR) and complications were compared. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics in terms of age, sex, BMI, and stone location, side, size, and HU were comparable between both groups (p values > 0.05). The overall SFR was significantly higher in group 1 (0.004). Balloon dilatation was not required in all patients of group-1 compared with 33% of group-2 (p = 0.0001). The JJ stent was required in 10% of group-1 compared with 30% of group-2 (p = 0.0004). Failure to reach the stone due to tight ureter occurred in 8% of group 2 (p = 0.003), respectively. Traxer's grade 1 ureteral injury occurred in 2% of group-1 versus 14% of group-2 (p = 0.001). Consequently, hematuria was significantly lower in group-1 (1% vs. 8%; p = 0.01), respectively. The hospital stay < 9 h was significantly higher in group 1 (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The 4.5/6 Fr semi-rigid Ureteroscope was associated with significantly higher SFR and shorter hospital stay, with lower ureteral injury, fewer double-J stenting, and without the need for intraoperative balloon dilatation for the ureter.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare 4.5/6 Fr versus 6/7.5 Fr semirigid ureteroscopes in terms of safety and efficacy in adult non-obese patients with middle or lower ureteric stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 198 patients with middle/lower ureteric stone and a BMI ≤ 30 kg/m2 were recruited. Patients were randomized according to the size of ureteroscope into two groups: group 1 where a 4.5/6 Fr semi-rigid ureteroscope was used, and group 2 where a 6/7.5 Fr semi-rigid ureteroscope was used. Patient's demographic, stone characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes including stone-free rate (SFR) and complications were compared. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics in terms of age, sex, BMI, and stone location, side, size, and HU were comparable between both groups (p values > 0.05). The overall SFR was significantly higher in group 1 (0.004). Balloon dilatation was not required in all patients of group-1 compared with 33% of group-2 (p = 0.0001). The JJ stent was required in 10% of group-1 compared with 30% of group-2 (p = 0.0004). Failure to reach the stone due to tight ureter occurred in 8% of group 2 (p = 0.003), respectively. Traxer's grade 1 ureteral injury occurred in 2% of group-1 versus 14% of group-2 (p = 0.001). Consequently, hematuria was significantly lower in group-1 (1% vs. 8%; p = 0.01), respectively. The hospital stay < 9 h was significantly higher in group 1 (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The 4.5/6 Fr semi-rigid Ureteroscope was associated with significantly higher SFR and shorter hospital stay, with lower ureteral injury, fewer double-J stenting, and without the need for intraoperative balloon dilatation for the ureter.
Authors: Dean Assimos; Amy Krambeck; Nicole L Miller; Manoj Monga; M Hassan Murad; Caleb P Nelson; Kenneth T Pace; Vernon M Pais; Margaret S Pearle; Glenn M Preminger; Hassan Razvi; Ojas Shah; Brian R Matlaga Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Osama M Elashry; Abdelnaser K Elgamasy; Magdy A Sabaa; Mohamed Abo-Elenien; Mohamed Adel Omar; Hassan H Eltatawy; Shawky A El-Abd Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 5.588