To study the outcome and safety of semirigid ureteroscopy (URS) using pneumatic lithotripsy for treatment of ureteral stones of surface area >30 mm2 and to assess the impact of size and location on stone-free (SF) rate.
In this study, 265 patients with >30 mm2 isolated ureteral stones treated by semirigid URS were included. URS was performed using an 8F, 7F, or 6.4F semirigid ureteroscopes with pneumatic lithotripsy (Swiss Lithoclast). Stones were fragmented to approximately 2-3 mm particles, and removed. The outcome parameters assessed at 3-month follow-up were SF rate and efficiency quotient (EQ); impact of stone size and site on SF/EQ was also analyzed. The patient demographics, stone, procedure, and patient-related parameters and complications were noted.
At 3-month follow-up overall SF was 74% and EQ 59.2%. SF for 30-100 mm2 and >100 mm2 was 79.2% and 68.5%, respectively (p < 0.003). The SF/EQ for upper, middle, and lower ureteral stones were 59/40.7, 53/37.5, and 92/84.5, respectively (p < 0.001). There was no major complication; the minor complication rate was 12.5%.
Semirigid URS using pneumatic lithotripsy for treatment of stones >30 mm2 is a safe and highly efficacious procedure particularly in the distal ureter. There is a significant difference in the SF and EQ between upper/middle ureteral stone and lower ureteral stone. Stone size has a direct relation with the SF and EQ. Upper ureteral stones have a longer time to SF compared to middle and lower ureteral stones (p < 0.001).
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
"The stone size was measured in two dimensions, i.e. the stone length and width. The stone surface area was calculated using the formula, surface area = length Â width Â p Â 0.25 . A single preoperative i.v. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objectives:
To assess the probability of spontaneous stone passage and its predictors after drainage of obstructed kidney by JJ stent, as insertion of an internal ureteric stent is often used for renal drainage in cases of calcular ureteric obstruction.
Patients and methods:
Between January 2011 and June 2013, patients for whom emergent drainage by ureteric stents were identified. The patients' demographics, presentation, and stone characteristics were reviewed. The primary endpoint for this study was stone-free status at the time of stent removal, where all patients underwent non-contrast spiral computed tomography (NCCT) before stent removal. Ureteroscopic stone extraction was performed for CT detectable ureteric stones at the time of stent removal. Potential factors affecting the need for ureteroscopic stone extraction at the time of stent removal were assessed using univariate and multivariate statistical analyses.
Emergent ureteric stents were undertaken in 196 patients (112 males, 84 females) with a mean (SD) age of 53.7 (16.2) years, for renal obstruction drainage. At the time of stent removal, 83 patients (42.3%) were stone free; with the remaining 113 patients (57.7%) undergoing ureteroscopic stone extraction. On multivariate analysis, stone width [odds ratio (OR) 15.849, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.83; P = 0.002) and radio-opaque stones (OR 12.035, 95% CI 4.65; P < 0.001) were independent predictors of the need for ureteroscopic stone extraction at the time of stent removal.
Spontaneous ureteric stone passage is possible after emergent drainage of an obstructed kidney by ureteric stenting. Stone opacity, larger stone width, and positive preoperative urine culture are associated with a greater probability of requiring ureteroscopic stone extraction after emergent drainage by ureteric stenting.
Full-text · Article · Oct 2015 · Arab Journal of Urology
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Transurethral lithotripsy (TUL) is a common procedure in urology. However, controversy persists about how to deal with stones pushed up into kidney from the ureter during the procedure of TUL. This study investigated the efficacy of combining flexible ureteroscopy and rigid ureteroscopy for pushed-up stones into kidney during TUL. Fotry-one patients underwent TUL by a single surgeon from July 2007 to May 2009. Eight cases resulted in pushed-up stones during operation or involved existing kidney stones. We used a Zero-tip or Litho Catch Basket catheter and a flexible ureteroscope to carry these stones in kidney down into the ureter where the rigid ureteroscope could then reach and handle the stone for lithotripsy or being taken away. A Lithoclast system was used for lithotripsy. Five cases involved stones pushed up during surgery and 3 cases involved stones already in the kidney in detail. We pulled the stones down into the ureter in all cases and successfully completed lithotripsy or removed the stone, thus avoiding the performance of additional extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). In conclusions, combined use of flexible ureteroscopy and rigid ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract stones pushed up into the kidney during TUL or renal stones could be useful for avoiding additional ESWL.
Full-text · Article · Jan 2010 · The Kobe journal of medical sciences
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective: To determine the efficiency of rigid ureteroscopy and pneumatic lithotripsy in ureteral stones.Materials and methods: We retrospectively evaluated 349 patients (356 renal units) with ureteral stones treated with rigid ureteroscopy and pneumatic lithotripsy. Results were evaluated 3 months after treatment by using excretory urography and/or ultrasonography. Complications and treatment success according to stone localization were compared.Results: The mean age of the patients was 43.2 (range 17-80). Of the patients 236 (66.6%) were male and 113 (33.4%) were female. Of the stones 271 (76.1%) were localized to lower ureter, compared to middle ureter in 51 (14.3%) and upper ureter in 34 (9.6%). The mean stone diameter was 13.6 (range 5-30) mm. The mean stone free rate was 92.4% (79.4% in upper ureter, 94.1% in middle ureter and 93.7% in lower ureter, p=0.020). Overall complication rate was 7.6% (7.7% in lower ureter, 3.9% in middle ureter and 11.8% in upper ureter, p=0.413). Most common peroperative complications of the procedure were infection 2.6% (n=9), ureteral perforation 4% (n=14), and mucosal laceration 1.1% (n=4). The most common late complication was ureteral stricture in 1.1% (n=4) of patients. Patients with lower ureteral stone were divided into two groups according to stone size; Group 1 ≤10 mm (n=154) and Group 2 >10 mm (n=117). Although statistically insignificant, overall stone free rate (95.5% vs 91.5%, p= 0.178) was higher and complication rate (5.2% vs %11.1, p=0.071) was lower in Group 1.Conclusion: Ureteroscopic treatment of ureteral stones with pneumatic lithotripsy and rigid ureteroscopy applied in all localizations provides high success rates, quick stone clearance, short hospital stay, and low complication rates. In the lower ureteral localization, stone size does not affect the overall stone free and complication rates when treated with rigid ureteroscopy and pneumatic lithotripsy.
No preview · Article · Sep 2010 · Turk Uroloji Dergisi