PurposeTo determine the predictive value of certain radiological parameters for an objective asssessment of the presence of ureteral stone impaction.Materials and MethodsSeventy-nine patients with a single proximal ureteral stones were retrieved from the departmental database. Both clinical and particularly radiological data of all cases were well evaluated on this aspect. In addition to the time period between the first colic attack and definitive management; diameter of proximal ureter and renal pelvis, longitudinal and transverse stone size, Hounsfied unit (HU) of the stone and lastly ureteral wall thickness at the impacted stone site were all carefully evaluated and noted.ResultsPatients had a single proximal ureteral stone. While mean age of the cases was ranged 20 to 78 years; mean stone size was 15.62±4.26 mm. Evaluation of our data demonstrated that although there was a statistically significant correlation between ureteral wall thickness and patients age, transverse diameter of the stone, ureteral diameter just proximal to the stone, renal pelvic diameter and the duration of renal colic attacks; no correlation could be demonstrated between patients sex and the HU of the stone.ConclusionsPrediction of the presence and degree of proximal ureteral stone impaction is a challenging issue and our data indicated a highly significant correlation between ureteral wall thickness and the some certain radiological as well as clinical parameters evaluated which will give an objective information about the presence of impaction which may in turn be helpful in the follow-up and also management plans of such calculi.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: To investigate the differences between urodynamic findings and history in women with urinary incontinence before surgery and clarify the need for preoperative pressure-flow studies. Materials and methods: The medical records of 1018 women who underwent urodynamic examination for urinary incontinence between 2010 and 2015 were evaluated retrospectively. Stress (n = 442), urge (n = 334) and mixed (n = 242) were classified as type urinary incontinence according to urodynamics. The voiding phase findings of the patients were examined. Results: The mean age of the patients was 47.85 ± 0.27 years. 18.4% of patients (n = 187) had voiding phase problems. Furthermore, this condition was seen in the most urge incontinence type urinary incontinence (35%). There was a statistically significant difference between the groups' voiding phase findings (p < 0.0001). The relationship between the patient's history and international consultation on incontinence questionnaire form scoring (ICIQ) and the urodynamics results showed no excellent correlation. Conclusions: Voiding phase abnormalities are not uncommon in patients with urinary incontinence. They should be considered in the evaluation of patients. Voiding phase findings may show significant differences between urodynamic data and history. Besides, the data obtained with the questionnaire forms were significantly different from the findings obtained by urodynamics. Consequently, urodynamics may change pre-operative clinical decision.