Introduction: Besides extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) has become an equal therapy of choice for the treatment of most distal ureteric stones. Before the wide availability of laser lithotripsy as a tool for stone fragmentation, pneumatic lithotripsy was, and still is, widely used. In a country like Iraq, availability and affordability are the huge questions asked. Besides the capital investment for a laser machine, the pneumatic device is reusable, whereas the laser fibers are limited in their reusability. This makes pneumatic lithotripsy a more cost-effective option, at least in our setting. The question remains whether both options, compared in our setting with our limited resources, are equally effective and beneficial to our patients. Patients and Methods: Fifty patients were included in our prospective study who underwent URS for the treatment of a distal ureteric stone. Half each (n = 25) underwent pneumatic (group A) or laser lithotripsy (group B). Inclusion criteria were a single distal ureteric stone measuring 7-20 mm in largest diameter, no anatomical abnormality, age >18 years, and an unsuccessful attempt of medical expulsion therapy. Patients with signs of urinary infection and pregnant women were excluded. All patients were operated upon under spinal anesthesia. Data recorded included operation time, stone size, type of scope and lithotripter, complications, hospital stay, and stone-free rate. Results: Both groups did not show statistically significant differences in patient demography, stone size, operation time, complications, and stone-free rates (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Both pneumatic and Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy are equally effective and safe in treating distal ureteric stones in our setting. If the cost and availability of laser treatment is an issue, pneumatic lithotripsy is a viable and more cost-effective option.
Objective
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sheathless and fluoroscopy-free flexible ureterorenoscopic laser lithotripsy (FURSL) for treating renal stones.
Methods
Between May 2015 and May 2017, 135 patients with renal stones treated with sheathless and fluoroscopy-free FURSL were prospectively evaluated. Our technique involved a semi-rigid ureteroscopic assessment of the ureter, and the guidewire was left
in situ
to railroad the flexible ureteroscope. A holmium laser was used to fragment and dust the stones; fragments were neither grasped nor collected.
Results
The study population consisted of 135 patients including 85 males (62.96%) and 50 females (37.04%) with a mean age of 40.65 years (range: 3–70 years) were evaluated. The mean stone size was 17.23 mm (range: 8–41 mm). Complete stone-free status was achieved in 122 (90.37%) patients and clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRF) in two (1.48%), while residual stones were still present in 11 (8.15%) patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 23 (17.4%) cases and were mostly minor, including fever in 17 (12.6%), pyelonephritis in four (3.0%), subcapsular hematoma in one (0.7%) and steinstrasse in one (0.7%). These complications were Clavien I-II, GI in 17 (12.6%) patients, GII in five (3.7%), and Clavien IIIb in one (0.7%). No major complications were observed. Stone size ≥2 cm, operative time ≥30 min, and lasing time ≥20 min were significantly associated with a higher rate of complications and lower stone-free rates upon univariate analysis (
p
<0.05).
Conclusion
Sheathless and fluoroscopy-free FURSL are effective and safe for renal stone management, especially for stones under 2 cm in diameter. This process is a feasible option for avoiding sheath complications, which can protect surgeons from the negative effects of radiation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.