Lasertripsy of upper urinary tract calculi after unsuccessful extracorporeal lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: comparison with primary lasertripsy.

Division of Urology, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey.
Journal of Endourology (Impact Factor: 2.07). 01/1994; 7(6):473-6. DOI: 10.1089/end.1993.7.473
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Lasertripsy of upper urinary tract calculi after unsuccessful extracorporeal lithotripsy (SWL) or ureteroscopy (Group 1; N = 26 patients, 36 calculi) was compared with primary lasertripsy (Group 2; N = 56 patients, 79 calculi). Access to calculi was achieved by a Candela miniscope or flexible ureteroscope, and laser fragmentation was performed with the Candela pulsed-dye laser. Laser alone or laser plus 1.9F basket extraction produced a stone-free rate of 80.6% in Group 1 and 79.8% in Group 2. Additional treatment methods were needed in similar proportions of both groups and in most patients consisted of SWL of fragments displaced into the kidney. The laser fragmentation failures rates were 2.8% in Group 1 and 7.6% in Group 2. One-month stone-free rates and major complication rates were similar in the two groups. Lasertripsy after unsuccessful SWL or ureteroscopy was as effective as primary lasertripsy.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A retrospective review of 48 consecutive morbidly obese patients with urolithiasis who were treated successfully by endoscopic modalities over 3.5 years was performed. Of the 73 endoscopic procedures, 48 were ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (UL), 4 were ureteroscopic basket extraction, and 21 were percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL). The patients' weight ranged from 205 to 385 lbs. (average 286 lbs.). Their abdominal girth ranged from 53 to 65 inches (average 59 inches). Twenty-six patients had one procedure, eight patients had bilateral procedures, eleven patients had two procedures, and three patients had three procedures with utilization of either multiple ureteroscopic treatments or the combination of percutaneous and ureteroscopic techniques. The stone-free rate after one procedure was 77.8% for UL and 60% for PCNL. The stone-free rate after planned repeat procedures was 97% for UL/UL and 89% for PCNL/UL. There were two minor complications. Forty-eight procedures were performed on an outpatient basis, and the remaining 25 procedures necessitated hospital admission (average 3.6 days). Morbidly obese patients with urolithiasis who are unable to have SWL because of their body weight and abdominal girth can be treated successfully with UL, ureteroscopic basket extraction, and PCNL with efficacy comparable to that in patients of normal weight and with minimal morbidity. Many renal calculi were treated with UL alone with a high success rate.
    Journal of Endourology 02/1998; 12(1):33-5. · 2.07 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the development of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, endoscopic stone removal, with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, is still an effective minimally invasive alternative for special indications. There is no defined all-purpose lithotripsy procedure for contact lithotripsy. The choice of the lithotripsy procedure for endoscopic stone disintegration depends on a number of different factors, the main one being stone localization. Small calibre, flexible probes (electrohydraulic, pneumatic, laser) are especially appropriate for ureterorenoscopy, but the speed of stone disintegration is a limiting factor. In contrast, large calibre rigid probes (ultrasound) are clearly more effective, but are unsuitable in size for flexible ureterorenoscopy. This indicates that the type and size of the endoscope decisively influences the choice of devices for endoscopic stone disintegration. Additional inhibiting factors are the flexibility or the rigidity of the instrument and the diameter of the working channel. It must be noted that total costs are not only calculated on the purchase of the equipment, but must also cover disposable materials.
    Current Opinion in Urology 12/2000; 10(6):571-5. · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • BJU International 04/2004; 93(5):671-9. · 3.05 Impact Factor