Comparison of Holmium Laser and Pneumatic Lithotripsy in Managing Upper-Ureteral Stones

Bapat, S.; Pai, Ketan V; Purnapatre, Satyajeet S; Yadav, Pushkaraj B; Padye, Abhijit S.

doi:10.1089/end.2006.0350

Cited by 57 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to the studies showing 139 Akdeniz et al A comparison of efficacies of holmium YAG laser, and pneumatic lithotripsy in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral stones similarities between both groups [8][9][10] , some of them reported that LL is more effective with lesser complication rates. [11][12][13] In our study, successive cases who had undergone intracoporeal lithotripsy in the endoscopic management of ureteral stones have been retrospectively analyzed, Groups of PL, and LL have been compared.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of efficacies of holmium YAG laser, and pneumatic lithotripsy in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral stones

Akdeniz

İrkılata

Demirel

et al. 2014

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We aimed to compare the effectiveness of holmium YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones. Material and methods:A total of 216 patients who had established indications of ureteroscopy between November 2011 and June 2012 were included in this study. Patients' files were retrospectively reviewed by dividing cases as groups that underwent pneumatic (PL) or laser lithotripsy (LL) procedures. Age, sex, stone burden and localization, duration of follow-up, operative times were evaluated. Stone-free rates were evaluated by ureteroscopical examination, postoperative scout films and ultrasonography.Results: Group PL consisted of 109 and group LL of 107 patients. Median age was 43.93±15.94 years in Group PL and 46.15±14.54 years in Group LL. Male to female ratio, stone burden and localization were similar for both groups. Overall success rate was 89.9% in Group PL and 87.9% in Group LL, respectively (p<0.791). With the aid of additional procedures, success rate was 100% for both groups at the end of the first month. Groups were not different as for operative time, rate of insertion of an ureteral catheter and its removal time. Hospitalization period was apparently somewhat shorter in Group LL (p= 0.00). Conclusion:Pneumatic lithotripsy can be as efficacious as laser lithotripsy and be used safely in the endoscopic management of ureteral stone. In comparison of both methods, we detected no differences as to operative time, success of operation and the time to removal of the catheter, however, hospitalization period was shorter in Group LL.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of efficacies of holmium YAG laser, and pneumatic lithotripsy in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral stones

Akdeniz

İrkılata

Demirel

et al. 2014

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Improvements in medical technology increased the success rate of ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Laser lithotripsy has better stone-free rates and lower complications rates than pneumatic lithotripsy for upper-ureteral stones [4]. Furthermore, laser lithotripsy has advantages over pneumatic lithotripsy with low-retrograde migration of ureteral calculi [5] and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) could reach the migrated stones in the same season.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy with Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for Large Proximal and Mid-Ureter Stones

Kaygısız¹,

Çoşkun²,

Kılıçarslan³

et al. 2015

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and complications of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy with laparoscopic ureter laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in mid- or proximal portion of large ureteral stones. Material and Methods: We reviewed patients with large (>15 mm) ureteral stone and those who underwent ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (URS group) or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU group). The first attempt was considered successful in patients who had residual fragments smaller than 2 mm and no conversion of the primary procedure to another. Results: Sixty patients (URS group 29, LU group 31) met inclusion criteria. FURS was used as an adjunctive procedure in one patient for URS group and in two patients for LU group in the same season. LU had a higher success rate and the first-day stone-free rate when compared with URS. Number of procedures was also significantly higher in URS group. There was no difference in stone-free rates at the first and third months, and length of hospitalization and operation were higher in the LU group. Only two patients in the LU group and one patient in the URS group had major complications. Conclusions: Laparoscopy is an effective option of large proximal and mid-ureter stone treatment; however, URS provides similar stone-free rates at three months as a minimal invasive procedure.

show abstract

“…Her iki yöntemi benzer olarak bildiren çalışmaların yanında (1-3), LL'nin daha etkin ve daha az komplikasyona sebep olduğunu bildiren karşılaştırmalı yayınlar mevcuttur (4)(5)(6). Bunun yanında LL'nin impakte taşlarda, üst üreter taşlarında ve pediatrik vakalarda PL'den daha etkin olduğunu bildiren yayınlar da mevcuttur (7)(8)(9).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Üreter Taşı Tedavisinde Lazer ile Pnömotik Litotripsinin Karşılaştırılması

Kuyucu¹,

Gürlen²,

Gürbüz³

2013

haseki

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ÖzetAmaç: Üreter taşı endoskopik tedavisinde lazer litotripsi ile pnömotik litotripsinin karşılaştırılması.Yöntem: Haziran 2011-Ekim 2012 tarihleri arasında ardışık 150 üreter taşının üreteroskopi ile tedavisi geriye dönük olarak değerlendirildi. Vakalar litotripsi yöntemine göre 2 ana gruba, her ana grup üst, orta ve alt üreter taşı olmak üzere 3 alt gruba ayrıldı. Ana ve alt gruplar taştan temizlenme, minör ve majör komplikasyonlar, JJ stent takımı ve operasyon süreleri bakımından karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular:Pnömotik litotripsi (PL) yapılan 62 hastada taştan temizlenme oranı %83.8 , JJ takılma oranı %61.1, hematüri oranı %69.3 ve mukozal yaralanma veya yalancı pasaj oranları %41.9 idi. Lazer litotripsi (LL) yapılan 88 hastada taştan temizlenme oranı %93.1, JJ stent takılma oranı %31.8 hematüri oranı %43.1 ve mukozal yaralanma veya yalancı pasaj oranı %11.3 idi. Her iki grupta majör komplikasyon gelişmedi. Operasyon süreleri PL grubunda 57.9 dk (15-170) iken LL grubunda 49.3 dk (20-120 dk) idi. Taştan temizlenme oranları arasında her iki ana grup ve alt gruplar arasında istatiksel olarak fark saptanmadı. Hematüri, minör komplikasyon ve JJ stent takılma oranları istatiksel olarak pnömotik litotripsi grubunda daha yüksekti. Methods: A total of 150 consequent patients with ureteral stones, who have been treated by ureteroscopy between June 2011 and October 2012, were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were divided into two main groups according to the treatment method, and each group were divided into three subgroups as upper, middle and lower ureteric stones. The groups and subgroups were compared for use of double-J stent, duration of operation, complications, and stone-free rate.Results:While 62 patients were treated with PL, the remaining 88 patients were treated with LL. For PL group, stone-free rate, double-J stent placement, hematuria and minor complication rates were 83%, 61.1%, 69.3% and 41.9%, respectively; for the LL group, these parameters were 93.1%, 31.8%, 43.1% and 11.3%, respectively. There were no major complications in both groups. The duration of operation in PL and LL groups were 57.9 min and 49.3 min, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two main groups as well as the subgroups for stone-free rates. Hematuria, minor complications and double-J stent placement rates were statistically higher in PLgroup.Conclusion:There was no difference in treatment success rates beetween LL and PL. LL was superior to PL in terms of minor complications, hematuria, double-J stent placement rates and duration of operation.

show abstract

Comparison of Holmium Laser and Pneumatic Lithotripsy in Managing Upper-Ureteral Stones

Abstract: In our study, the fragmentation rates of holmium laser-assisted ureteroscopy were significantly better in the upper ureter. The complications and the need for auxiliary procedures were significantly less for holmium laser-assisted ureteroscopy when compared with pneumatic lithotripsy.

Cited by 57 publications

References 14 publications

A comparison of efficacies of holmium YAG laser, and pneumatic lithotripsy in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral stones

A comparison of efficacies of holmium YAG laser, and pneumatic lithotripsy in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral stones

Comparison of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy with Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for Large Proximal and Mid-Ureter Stones

Üreter Taşı Tedavisinde Lazer ile Pnömotik Litotripsinin Karşılaştırılması

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About