Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones

Galal, Ehab Mohamad; Anwar, Ahmad; El-Bab, Tarek Khalaf Fath; Abdelhamid, Amr Mohamad

doi:10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2015.0644

Cited by 27 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…But there may be other set of patients who might prefer to have their stone removed and the pain alleviated at the earliest possible time, thus avoiding multiple treatment sessions that might be required in case of SWL as treatment modality. [18,19] It was mentioned in a study that compared with SWL, ureteroscopic removal of ureteral stones achieved a greater stone-free status, but with a higher complication rate and longer hospital stay. [19] Lee et al [20] reported lack of any significant differences regarding patients' satisfaction for either intervention (URS or SWL).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience

Iqbal

Malik²,

Nadeem³

et al. 2018

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience

Iqbal

Malik²,

Nadeem³

et al. 2018

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, it is necessary to change the anesthesia type. There are numerous studies comparing the anesthesia types performed before sURS; however, most studies compare local anesthesia with GA or SA [ 9 – 13 ]. Frequently, carefully selected patients, such as those with distal ureteral stones and female patients were included in these studies, and thinner caliber ureteroscopes are used during the surgeries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is spinal anesthesia an alternative and feasible method for proximal ureteral stone treatment?

Topaktaş

Altin

Aydın

et al. 2020

Cent european J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction We investigated the clinical, operational, and pain parameters of patients who underwent semirigid ureterorenoscopy (sURS) under spinal anesthesia (SA) and general anesthesia (GA) for proximal ureter stones. Material and methods Patients treated with sURS after diagnosis of proximal ureter stones between January 2014 and May 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups (the SA group and the GA group) based on the type of anesthesia used. Perioperative variables and operation results were evaluated and compared. Success was defined as the patient being stone-free as observed on low-dose non-contrast computed tomography performed in the first month postoperatively. Results The SA and GA groups had 40 and 32 patients, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of age (p = 0.593), gender (p = 0.910), average stone size (p = 0.056), side (p = 0.958), or density (p = 0.337). Based on the Clavien classification system, complication rates between the two groups were similar. The postoperative visual pain scale in the SA group was statistically significantly lower (p <0.05) than in the GA group. Success rates in the SA and GA groups were found to be 90% (36/40) and 93.7% (30/32), respectively, with no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.819). Conclusions Ureterorenoscopy, which is performed for proximal ureter stone treatment in adult patients, is a reliable surgical method that can be performed under both SA and GA. SA offers the advantage of reduced postoperative pain as compared to GA.

show abstract

“…AUA guidelines recommended that a FURS should be available when performing URS for proximal ureteric calculi [3]. Galal et al and Karadag et al compared both techniques for treatment of proximal ureteric calculi and reported that FURS offered significantly better stone free rate ( P = 0.005) but rigid URS had significantly shorter operative time (P = 0.005) and both had comparable complication rates [9, 10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of case volume per year on flexible Ureteroscopy practice: an internet based survey

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo report current worldwide variation in techniques and clinical practice of flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) among endourologists of different case volumes per year.MethodsTwo invitations to complete an internet survey were emailed to Endourological Society members. Some of survey questions asked about indications of using FURS for renal and upper ureteral stones. Others were concerned with clinical practice of FURS (such as preoperative stenting, use of ureteral access sheath (UAS) and safety guidewire, technique of Laser lithotripsy and fragment retrieval, and post-FURS stenting. Responders were distributed into two groups; high-volume (> 100 cases/year) and low-volume surgeons (< 100 cases/year) and data were compared between both groups.ResultsResponses were received from 146 endourologists all over the world (62 high-volume and 84 low-volume). FURS for intrarenal stone > 20 mm was used by 61% of high-volume surgeons compared with 28.6% for low-volume (P < 0.001). Semirigid URS was used for upper ureteric stones in 68% among high-volume group and 82% in low-volume group (P = 0.044). UAS was used by 62% in low-volume group and 69% in high volume group (P = 0.516). Laser stone dusting was preferred by 63% in low-volume group versus 45% by high-volume (P = 0.031). More responders in low-volume group preferred to leave the stent for 6 weeks (P = 0.042).ConclusionsThe use of FURS for treating upper tract calculi has expanded by high volume endourologists to include large renal stones > 20 mm. Low-volume surgeons prefer to use semi-rigid URS for treatment of upper ureteral stones, to apply Laser stone dusting and maintain ureteral stents for longer periods.

show abstract

Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones

Cited by 27 publications

References 18 publications

Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience

Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience

Is spinal anesthesia an alternative and feasible method for proximal ureteral stone treatment?

Impact of case volume per year on flexible Ureteroscopy practice: an internet based survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About