SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İzmir Tepecik Eğitim Hastanesi Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1

Our results of ureteroscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lıthotrıpsy for the treatment of ureteral stones

Üreter taşlarının tedavisinde üreteroskopi ve vücut dışı şok dalgaları ile taş kırma sonuçlarımız

Ersin KONYALIOĞLU
Bülent İPEK
Pages
31–36
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall success rates were determined 91.1 (72/79) percent in ureteroscopy group and 83.7 percent (155/185) in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy group free from size and localization (p<0.05).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Rigid ureteroscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment results were evaluated according to the size and localization of the stones in the treatment of ureteral stones.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: In this study, we evaluated 79 patients who have been treated with rigid ureteroscopy and 185 patients who have been treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy .
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall success rates were determined 91.1 (72/79) percent in ureteroscopy group and 83.7 percent (155/185) in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy group free from size and localization (p<0.05).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: Rigid ureteroscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment results were evaluated according to the size and localization of the stones in the treatment of ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: In this study, we evaluated 79 patients who have been treated with rigid ureteroscopy and 185 patients who have been treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy . The stones have been separated into 3 groups due to localization as distal, mid and proximal ureter, and into 2 groups due to size as <10 mm and >10 mm Success rates and extra treatment requirements have been evaluated. Findings: Average stone size was determined 10.3 mm (7-18) in ureteroscopy group and 9.7 mm (6-17) in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy group. The success rates of ureteroscopy group according to localization were as follows for proximal, mid and distal ureter respectively: 55.5 (5/9), 92.8 (26/28), and 97.6 (41/42) percent. The rates for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy group were as follows respectively: 87.5 (113/129), 76.9 (40/52), and 50.0 (2/4) percent. The success rates for ureteroscopy group of ureteral stones <10 mm and >10 mm were as follows respectively: 94.2 (33/35), and 88.6 (39/44) percent (p<0.05). These rates for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy group were as follows respectively: 88.6 (86/97), and 78.4 (69/87) percent (p<0.05). Overall success rates were determined 91.1 (72/79) percent in ureteroscopy group and 83.7 percent (155/185) in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy group free from size and localization (p<0.05). Conclusion: Although our success rates of ureteroscopy group were higher than the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy group, our success rates for the proximal ureteral stones were quiet low in ureteroscopy group.

Özet

Amaç: Üreter taşlarının tedavisinde rijit üreteroskopi (URS) ve vücut dışı şok dalgalarıyla taş kırma (ESWL) tedavisinin so- nuçları, taşın üreterdeki konumu ve taş boyutuna göre değerlendirildi. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmada üreter taşı tanısı olan rijit üreteroskopi ile pnömotik litotripsi tedavisi uygulanan 79 hasta ve ESWL uygulanan 185 hasta değerlendirildi. Taşlar üreterdeki yerine göre alt, orta ve üst üreter olarak 3 gruba, taşın boyutuna göre 10 mm olarak 2 gruba ayrıldı. Başarı oranları ve ek tedavi gereksinimleri değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Ortalama taş boyutu üreteroskopi grubunda 10.3 mm (7_18), ESWL grubunda 9.7 mm (6-17) olarak saptandı. Ta- şın üreterdeki yerine göre başarı oranı üreteroskopi grubunda üst, orta ve alt üreter için sırası ile %55.5(5/9), %92.8 (26/28), %97.6 (41/42) olarak saptandı. ESWL grubunda ise bu oranlar sırası ile %87.5 (113/129), %76.9 (40/52), %50.0 (2/4) olarak saptandı. Üreteroskopi grubunda 10 mm üreter taşlarında başarı oranları sırası ile %94.2 (33/35), %88.6 (39/44) olarak saptandı (p<0.05). ESWL grubunda ise bu oranlar sırası ile %88.6(86/97), %78.4 (69/87) olarak saptandı (p<0.05). Taşın yeri ve boyutundan bağımsız olarak genel başarı oranı üreteroskopi grubunda %91.1 (72/79), ESWL grubunda %83.7b(155/185) olarak saptandı (p<0.05). Sonuç: Her ne kadar üreteroskopi grubundaki genel başarı oranımız ESWL grubundakinden daha yüksek olsa da üst üreter taşlarındaki üreteroskopi başarı oranımız ESWL grubuna göre düşüktür.

🔖

Cite This Article

KONYALIOĞLU, E., İPEK, B. (2014). Our results of ureteroscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lıthotrıpsy for the treatment of ureteral stones. İzmir Tepecik Eğitim Hastanesi Dergisi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1, 31–36. https://ajindex.com/articles/214941

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Küpeli B, Biri H, Isen K, Onaran M, Alkibay T, Karaoğlan U, eal. Treatment of ureteral stones: comparison of extracorporeashock wave lithotripsy and endourologic alternatives. Eur Uro1998;34:474-9. Preminger GM. 2007 guideline for the management of ureteracalculi. J Urol 2007;178:2418-34.
  2. Türk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, seitz C, Straub M, Traxer O, et alEAU Guidelines on urolithiasis 2010;44-70.
  3. Strohmaier WL, Schubert G, Rosenkranz T, Weigl A. Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Eur Uro1999;36:376-9.
  4. Ibrahim AIA, Shetty SD, Awad RM. Prognostic factors in the conservative treatment of ureteric stones. Br J Uro1991;67:358-61.
  5. Singal RK, Denstedt JD, Razvi HA, Chun SS. Holmium:YAG laser endoureterotomy for treatment of ureteral stricture. Urology 1997;50:875-80.
  6. Bilgasem S, Pace KT, Dyer S, Honey RJ. Removal of asymptomatic ipsilateral renal stones following rigid ureteroscopy foureteral stones. J Endourol 2003;17:397-400. 8. Tekin Mİ, Peşkircioğlu L, Güven O, Aygün C, Dirim A, Öz- kardeş H. Üst ve orta üreter taşlarında üreteroskopinin yeri. Türk Üroloji Dergisi 2001;27:42-5.
  7. Çimentepe E, Ünsal A, Sağlam R, Balbay MD. Comparison of clinical outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in pa- tients with radiopaque v radiolucent ureteral calculi. J Endourol 2003;17:863-5.
  8. Ünsal A, Çimentepe E, Sağlam R. Endoürolojik girişimlerde pnömatik litotripsi. Türk Üroloji Dergisi 2001;27:363-7.
  9. Pearle MS, Nadler R, Bercowsky E, Chen C, Dunn M, Figen- shau RS, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol 2001;166:1255-60.
  10. Peschel R, Janetschek G, Bartsch G. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a pro- spective randomized study. J Urol 1999;162:1909-12.
  11. Park J, Shin DW, Chung JH, et al. Shock Wave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopy for Ureteral Calculi: A Prospective As- sessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes. World J Urol 2013;31:1569 74. Kapoor DA, Leech JE, Yap WT, Rose JF, Kabler R, Mowad JJ. Cost and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy ver- sus ureteroscopy in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi. J Urol 1992;148(3 Pt 2):1095-6.