Literature DB >> 7714947

Submucosal calculi: endoscopic and intraluminal sonographic diagnosis and treatment options.

M Grasso1, J B Liu, B Goldberg, D H Bagley.   

Abstract

After shock wave lithotripsy and endoscopic lithotripsy, occasionally a patient has persistent ureteral fragments associated with ureteral obstruction. After lithotripsy, stone fragments may be embedded in the ureteral mucosa, and they may become completely submucosal and associated with obstruction. Others may be hidden in iatrogenic ureteral outpouchings, while still others may be extruded from the ureter entirely. We present 20 patients who were referred after previous treatment failed to clear fragments or who had residual obstruction. The majority of patients had failed endoscopic fragment retrieval or shock wave lithotripsy and were referred with ureteral obstruction. All patients were reevaluated by repeated upper tract endoscopy with small diameter endoscopes. As an adjunct to ureteral endoscopy, a 6F, 20 MHz. ultrasound probe was placed transureterally to determine the depth and location of stones. A total of 15 patients in this series had hyperechoic foci with shadowing consistent with submucosal or periureteral stone fragments. A decision for treatment was based upon the location as noted by sonographic and fluoroscopic visualization of intramucosal and submucosal fragments. Calculi more than 4 mm. from the lumen were not removed without evidence of obstruction. Multiple, small (speckled) fragments embedded in the mucosa were often associated with subsequent stricture. Solitary fragments within the wall of the ureter could be removed with relief of obstruction. The risk of embedding calculi submucosally during lithotripsy should be recognized. Submucosal fragments causing obstruction should be removed endoscopically. Totally extruded calculi may be left in situ safely.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7714947     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)67409-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  6 in total

Review 1.  Estimating the effectiveness of various methods of evacuation of kidney stones, on the basis of data obtained on percentage of "stone free" and recurrent stone formation.

Authors:  V M Bilobrov; A Roy; S V Bilobrov
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous?

Authors:  Muhammet Fatih Kilinc; Omer Gokhan Doluoglu; Tolga Karakan; Ayhan Dalkilic; Nurettin Cem Sonmez; Yasin Aydogmus; Berkan Resorlu
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Does previous failed ESWL have a negative impact of on the outcome of ureterorenoscopy? A matched pair analysis.

Authors:  Prodromos Philippou; David Payne; Kim Davenport; Anthony G Timoney; Francis X Keeley
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 4.  Prevention strategies for ureteral stricture following ureteroscopic lithotripsy.

Authors:  Hao Dong; Yonghan Peng; Ling Li; Xiaofeng Gao
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2017-09-22

5.  Comparison of ureteroscopy (URS) complementary treatment after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy failure with primary URS lithotripsy with holmium laser treatment for proximal ureteral stones larger than10mm.

Authors:  Feng Yao; XiaoLiang Jiang; Bin Xie; Ning Liu
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 2.264

6.  Flexible ureteroscopy update: indications, instrumentation and technical advances.

Authors:  Srinivas Rajamahanty; Michael Grasso
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2008-10
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.