Comparing of Different Methods for Prevention Stone Migration During Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy

Şen, Haluk; Bayrak, Ömer; Erturhan, Sakıp; Urgun, Gokhan; Kül, Seval; Erbağcı, Ahmet; Şeçkiner, İlker

doi:10.1159/000351002

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was similar to the fact that it is the common complication in pneumatic lithotripsy as compared to laser lithotripsy. 17 This occurred only in one patients of laser lithotripsy in our study. That may be the reason of preference of using laser lithotripsy by many urologists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 50%

Comparative evaluation of intracorporeal lithotripsy techniques during ureteroscopy: a clinical experience

Trivedi

2020

Int Surg J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The objective of the study was to compare pneumatic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy techniques for safety, efficacy, and complications in the management of ureteric stone.Methods: Patients underwent ureteroscopy for ureteral stones in a tertiary care teaching hospital were divided into 2 groups of 50 each. Group 1 patients underwent pneumatic lithotripsy and group 2 underwent holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Ho: YAG) laser lithotripsy. Both the groups were compared regarding demographic characteristics, stone dimensions, number of stones, operative time, stone migration rate, application of post-operative double J (DJ) stent, complications, and stone free rate.Results: Mean age of the patients in the group 1, and group 2 were 45.74±18.49, and 44.5±14.33 years, respectively (p=0.709). There was no significant difference in male to female ratio in both groups. Total operative times were found 29.12±10.83 min, and 28.44±7.49 min in the group 1 and group 2, respectively which was statistically non-significant (p=0.716). The stone free rate was 100% and 98% in group 1 and 2 respectively (p=0.130). Stone migration was also found in 5 (10%) patients in the group 1 and 1 (2%) in group 2 which was found statistically significant (p=0.037). Mucosal damage was found 3 (6%) in laser group as compared to 1 (2%) in pneumatic group. No significant difference between complications was seen in both the groups.Conclusions: This study concluded that pneumatic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy have similar efficacy in terms of operative time, success rate and hospital stay time. However, stone migration rate was significantly more in pneumatic lithotripsy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 50%

Comparative evaluation of intracorporeal lithotripsy techniques during ureteroscopy: a clinical experience

Trivedi

2020

Int Surg J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Upward migration of a ureteric stone is a common complication when using a pneumatic energy source [ 19 ] and is one of the arguments favouring the use of laser lithotripsy. In our present study, no difference was found in the rate of stone migration between the groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pneumatic vs laser lithotripsy for mid-ureteric stones: Clinical and cost effectiveness results of a prospective trial in a developing country

Nour

Kamel

Elmansy

et al. 2020

Arab Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the management of large ureteric stones (>10 mm) with ureterorenoscopy (URS) and laser or pneumatic lithotripsy, and their associated costs. Patients and methods Our prospective study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and included 101 patients with large mid-ureteric stones eligible for URS and lithotripsy, and was conducted between January 2018 and August 2019. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1 had laser lithotripsy, while the Group 2 had lithotripsy using a pneumatic energy source. Results Operative time was significantly longer in cases using pneumatic lithotripsy ( P < 0.001). The stone-free rate (SFR) on the first postoperative day was 94% and 92.5% for laser and pneumatic lithotripsy respectively, and there were no statistically significant differences in terms of early (day 1) or late (day 30) SFRs between the groups. Complications were classified according to the Clavien–Dindo Grading System, all complications were Grade

show abstract

“…12 However, it is usually not possible to pass the guidewire behind the stone in impacted stones; repeated manipulation may cause mucosal injury. In our study, in 15 of the patients in the UL group (33 %), retrograde intrarenal surgery was performed as a second procedure because of stone migration or large fragments into the renal collecting system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally invasive surgical treatment for large impacted upper ureteral stones: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Bozkurt

Yonguç

Arslan

et al. 2015

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The management of patients with large impacted upper ureteral stones is difficult; there is no standard treatment. We compared the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (UL) to treat large (≥1.5 cm), impacted, upper ureteral stones. Methods: In total, 86 patients with large impacted upper ureteral stones were included in this study. Of these patients 41 underwent UL and 45 underwent PCNL. The inclusion criteria were: longest diameter of stone ≥1.5 cm, the localization of stone between the lower border of L4 spine and ureteropelvic junction and impacted stone. Results: In the UL group, we were unable to reach the stone in 3 patients because of ureteral stricture and edema despite balloon dilation. Of these 3 patients, we were unable to optimally visualize the stone in 2 patients due to bleeding and mucosal injury following balloon dilation. The stricture was too firm and could not be passed in the third patient. Also in the UL group, 15 patients had stones or big fragments which migrated into the renal collecting system. In the PCNL group, 21 patients had concurrent renal stones <1 cm and stones were successfully removed in all patients. No statistically significant difference was found between groups in terms of operation time. Mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the UL group. Success rates were 82.3% in the UL group and 97.6% in the PCNL group (p = 0.001). Conclusion:The recent study confirms that PCNL is a safe and effective minimally invasive procedure with acceptable complication rates in the treatment of patients with large, impacted upper ureteral stones.

show abstract

Comparing of Different Methods for Prevention Stone Migration During Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy

Cited by 15 publications

References 21 publications

Comparative evaluation of intracorporeal lithotripsy techniques during ureteroscopy: a clinical experience

Comparative evaluation of intracorporeal lithotripsy techniques during ureteroscopy: a clinical experience

Pneumatic vs laser lithotripsy for mid-ureteric stones: Clinical and cost effectiveness results of a prospective trial in a developing country

Minimally invasive surgical treatment for large impacted upper ureteral stones: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About