Literature DB >> 9895251

Two-year experience with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy v ureteroscopic manipulation.

H Park1, M Park, T Park.   

Abstract

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic manipulation became the standard treatments for ureteral stones in recent years. There still exists significant debate as to the most appropriate treatment modality for ureteral stones. During a period of 2 years, from January 1994 to December 1995, 651 patients with ureteral stones were treated, and 589 patients were retrospectively reviewed, excluding 62 patients with incomplete follow-up. Four hundred forty-two patients were treated with SWL using the MPL 9000 with ultrasonic guidance and 115 patients with ureteroscopic manipulations using 7.9F to 11.5F rigid and semirigid ureteroscopes. In SWL treatments, the overall stone-free rate was 74.7% with one session. The stone-free rate was significantly affected by the size of stones, being 83.6% when the stone was <1.0 cm and 42.1% when the stone was >1.0 cm. The stone-free rate after a second SWL session was 84.4% and was 90.3% after a third session. The stone-free rates according to the site of the stone were 72.4 (proximal), 70.0 (mid), and 80.2% (distal) after a single session. In ureteroscopic manipulation, an overall stone-free rate of 87.8% was obtained regardless of the size of the stones. The success rates according to the location of stones were 75.0 (proximal), 94.6 (mid), and 86.4% (distal). Open ureterolithotomy was performed in 32 patients, with a 100% success rate. In our study, the size of the stones was the most important factor influencing the success rate of SWL treatment. We consider ureteroscopic manipulation as the first-line treatment modality when the stone is >1.0 cm, especially if it is in the distal ureter. Proper selection of patients for in situ SWL or ureteroscopy would improve the results of initial treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9895251     DOI: 10.1089/end.1998.12.501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  33 in total

1.  Value of focal applied energy quotient in treatment of ureteral lithiasis with shock waves.

Authors:  Miguel Angel Arrabal-Polo; Miguel Arrabal-Martin; Francisco Palao-Yago; Jose Luis Mijan-Ortiz; Armando Zuluaga-Gomez
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2011-10-15

Review 2.  Removal of ureteral stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic procedures. What can we learn from the literature in terms of results and treatment efforts?

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2005-05-29

3.  Retroperitoneoscopic versus open mini-incision ureterolithotomy for upper- and mid-ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Jai Prakash; Vishwajeet Singh; Manoj Kumar; Manoj Kumar; Rahul Janak Sinha; Satyanarayan Sankhwar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 4.  [Importance of open and laparoscopic stone surgery].

Authors:  M Hruza; C Türk; T Frede; J Rassweiler
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi.

Authors:  Joshua D Wiesenthal; Daniela Ghiculete; R John D'A Honey; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-07-13

6.  Ureteroscopic treatment of ureteral lithiasis with pneumatic lithotripsy: analysis of 287 procedures in a public hospital.

Authors:  Kadir Ceylan; Orhan Sünbül; Adem Sahin; Mustafa Güneş
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2005-07-27

7.  Selecting Treatment for Distal Ureteral Calculi: Shock Wave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Ojas D Shah; Brian R Matlaga; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2003

8.  Comparison of Patient Satisfaction with Treatment Outcomes between Ureteroscopy and Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Stones.

Authors:  Jong-Hyun Lee; Seung Hyo Woo; Eun Tak Kim; Dae Kyung Kim; Jinsung Park
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2010-11-17

9.  Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi: a prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Jinsung Park; Dong Wook Shin; Jae Hoon Chung; Seung Wook Lee
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Does stone dimension affect the effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones?

Authors:  Volkan Tuğcu; Ali Ihsan Taşci; Emin Ozbek; Bekir Aras; Levent Verim; Levent Gürkan
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.370

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.