Ureteroscopic Management with Laser Lithotripsy of Renal Pelvic Stones

被引:25
|
作者
Atis, Gokhan [1 ]
Gurbuz, Cenk [1 ]
Arikan, Ozgur [1 ]
Canat, Lutfi [1 ]
Kilic, Mert [1 ]
Caskurlu, Turhan [1 ]
机构
[1] Goztepe Training & Res Hosp, Dept Urol, Istanbul, Turkey
关键词
SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY; PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY; FLEXIBLE URETERORENOSCOPY; SEMIRIGID URETEROSCOPY; STAGHORN CALCULI; CM; COMPLICATIONS; GUIDELINE; PRESSURE; SURGERY;
D O I
10.1089/end.2011.0664
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background and Purpose: The development of semirigid and flexible ureteroscopes has permitted easier access to calculi throughout the urinary tract. We compared the use of semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy for the management of shockwave lithotripsy-refractory, isolated renal pelvic calculi by evaluating stone-free rates, operating room times, and associated complications. Patients and Methods: Ureteroscopic stone treatment was attempted in 47 patients with isolated renal pelvic stones between November 2008 and December 2010. The procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Semirigid ureteroscopy was routinely performed in all patients. If the stones were accessible in the renal pelvis with the semirigid ureteroscope (S-URS), they were then treated with the holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser through S-URS under direct vision. If the stones were not accessible, flexible ureteroscopy was then performed. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were retrospectively analyzed. Results: In 25 of 47 patients, renal pelvic stones were accessible with S-URS, and the stones were fragmented with the Ho:YAG laser using S-URS. In the remaining 22 patients, the stones were accessed with the flexible ureteroscope (F-URS), and the fragmentation of stones was performed with the Ho:YAG laser using the F-URS. There were no significant differences in age, body mass index, grade of hydronephrosis, mean stone size, and stone laterality among the two groups. The mean operative times were 71.90+/-17.90 minutes in the S-URS group and 93.41+/-18.56 minutes in the F-URS group (P = 0.001). The stone-free rates at postoperative day 1 and at the 1 month follow-up were 72% and 76% in the S-URS group and 81.8% and 86.4% in the F-URS group, respectively (P = 0.861 and P = 0.368). We found no significant differences among groups with regard to stone-free rates, complication rates, and hospital lengths of stay. Conclusions: Although it is well known that flexible ureteroscopy permits a detailed caliceal examination and therapeutic interventions, semirigid ureteroscopy is also often another sufficient means of reaching the renal pelvis in selected patients.
引用
收藏
页码:983 / 987
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] To Dust or Not To Dust: a Systematic Review of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy Techniques
    Santiago, Javier E.
    Hollander, Adam B.
    Soni, Samit D.
    Link, Richard E.
    Mayer, Wesley A.
    CURRENT UROLOGY REPORTS, 2017, 18 (04)
  • [12] Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal and Ureteric Stones
    Bach, Christian
    Buchholz, Noor
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY SUPPLEMENTS, 2011, 10 (05) : 423 - 432
  • [13] Fluid-electrolyte and renal pelvic pressure changes during ureteroscopic lithotripsy
    Shao, Yi
    Shen, Zhi-Jie
    Zhu, Yi-Yong
    Sun, Xiao-Wen
    Lu, Jun
    Xia, Shu-Jie
    MINIMALLY INVASIVE THERAPY & ALLIED TECHNOLOGIES, 2012, 21 (04) : 302 - 306
  • [14] Negative-Pressure Ureteroscopic Holmium-YAG Laser Lithotripsy for Ureteral Stones
    Wu, Zhong-Hua
    Liu, Tong-Zu
    Wang, Xing-Huan
    Wang, Yong-Zhi
    Zheng, Hang
    Zhang, Yin-Gao
    Zhang, Xin-Hua
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2020, 104 (9-10) : 752 - 757
  • [15] Comparison of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy with Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for Large Proximal and Mid-Ureter Stones
    Kaygisiz, Onur
    Coskun, Burhan
    Kilicarslan, Hakan
    Kordan, Yakup
    Vuruskan, Hakan
    Ozmerdiven, Gokhun
    Yavacaoglu, Ismet
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2015, 94 (02) : 205 - 209
  • [16] Minimally Invasive Surgical Ureterolithotomy Versus Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Large Ureteric Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Literature
    Kallidonis, Panagiotis
    Ntasiotis, Panteleimon
    Knoll, Thomas
    Sarica, Kemal
    Papatsoris, Athanasios
    Somani, Bhaskar K.
    Greco, Francesco
    Aboumarzouk, Omar M.
    Alvarez-Maestro, Mario
    Sanguedolce, Francesco
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2017, 3 (06): : 554 - 566
  • [17] Pneumatic Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy: Is It Still a Reasonable Treatment Option for Multiple Ureteric Stones?
    Isen, Kenan
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2012, 88 (03) : 316 - 321
  • [18] Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience
    Iqbal, Nadeem
    Malik, Yashfeen
    Nadeem, Utbah
    Khalid, Maham
    Pirzada, Amna
    Majeed, Mehr
    Malik, Hajra Arshad
    Akhter, Saeed
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 44 (03): : 221 - 227
  • [19] Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy versus ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for large proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Li, Jingdong
    Chang, Xueliang
    Wang, Yaxuan
    Han, Zhenwei
    MINERVA UROLOGICA E NEFROLOGICA, 2020, 72 (01) : 30 - 37
  • [20] Flexible Ureteroscopy and Laser Lithotripsy for Bilateral Multiple Intrarenal Stones: Is This a Valuable Choice?
    Huang, Zhichao
    Fu, Fajun
    Zhong, Zhaohui
    Zhang, Lei
    Xu, Ran
    Zhao, Xiaokun
    UROLOGY, 2012, 80 (04) : 800 - 804