SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2011 / Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 4

ESWL sonrası yapılan üreteroskopik litotripside ek ekipman gereksinimi

The need for additional equipment after ESWL in ureteroscopic lithotripsy

Bayram GÜNER
Turhan ÇAŞKURLU
Ayhan KARAKÖSE
Lütfi CANAT
Gökhan ATIŞ
Cenk GÜRBÜZ
Pages
307–310
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)

In patients with a history of ESWL, the need for accessory equipment is increased.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study evaluated our results with ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) in patients with failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy therapy (ESWL) and examined the effect of previous ESWL on the use of tools during URS, operating time, and outcome.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: URS performed in two centers between 2008 and 2011 was reviewed retrospec- tively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In patients with a history of ESWL, the need for accessory equipment is increased.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated our results with ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) in patients with failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy therapy (ESWL) and examined the effect of previous ESWL on the use of tools during URS, operating time, and outcome. Materials and methods: URS performed in two centers between 2008 and 2011 was reviewed retrospec- tively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the history of previous ESWL: 1) patients who underwent ESWL previously (n=39) and 2) no previous ESWL (n=116). Results: The demographic data were similar in both groups. The use of accessory tools and treatment fail- ure was statistically higher in Group 1. The operating time was longer in Group 1. The need for re-operation, balloon dilatation, and ureteral catheter was similar in the two groups. However, the use of accessory equip- ment was increased by 56% in those with a previous ESWL. Balloon dilatation was required in 17.9% of the patients in Group 1. Conclusion: URS is the main treatment modality after the failure of ESWL. In patients with a history of ESWL, the need for accessory equipment is increased.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı vücut dışı şok dalga tedavisi (ESWL) başarısız olmuş hastalarda üreteroskopik litotripsi (ÜRS) sonuçlarımızı incelemek ve geçirilmiş ESWL öyküsünün ÜRS esnasında alet kullanımı, operasyon süresi ve başarı üzerine olan etkisini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve yöntem: 2008-2011 yılları arasında iki merkezde yapılan ÜRS vakaları retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi ve geçirilmiş ESWL öyküsüne göre hastalar iki gruba ayrıldı. ESWL öyküsü olan 39 hasta Grup 1, ESWL öyküsü olmayan 116 hasta Grup 2 olarak tanımlandı. Bulgular: Her iki grubun demografik verileri benzerdi. Grup 1’de başarısızlık ve aksesuar alet kullanımı istatistiksel olarak daha yüksekti. Operasyon süresi Grup 1’de daha uzun olarak tespit edildi. Geçirilmiş ESWL öyküsü olanlarda yeniden operasyon, balon dilatasyon gereksinimi ve üreter kateteri gereksinimi ESWL öyküsü olmayan hastalarla benzerdi. Ancak geçirilmiş ESWL öyküsü olanlarda aksesuar alet kullanımı %56 oranında artmakta idi. Stone cone, en sık kullanılan aksesuar alet idi. Grup 1’deki hastaların %17.9’unda balon dilatasyon gereksinimi oldu. Sonuç: ESWL başarısızlığı sonrası ÜRS esas tedavi yöntemidir. Geçirilmiş ESWL öyküsü olanlarda aksesuar alet kullanım gereksinimi artmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNER, B., ÇAŞKURLU, T., KARAKÖSE, A., CANAT, L., ATIŞ, G., GÜRBÜZ, C. (2011). ESWL sonrası yapılan üreteroskopik litotripside ek ekipman gereksinimi. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 4, 307–310. https://ajindex.com/articles/328084

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Keeley FX, Pillai M, Smith G, Chrisofos M, Tolley DA. Electrokinetic lithotripsy: safety, efficacy and limitations of a new form of ballistic lithotripsy. BJU Int 1999;84:261-3.
  2. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck C, Gallucci M, et al. 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 2007;52:1610-31.
  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 Urol 1999;36:376-9.
  4. Küpeli B, Alkibay T, S×n×k Z, Karaoùlan Ü, Bozk×rl× I. What is the optimal treatment for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm? Int J Urol 2000;7:167-71.
  5. Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJ, De La Rosette JJ, Stultiens GN, Beerlage HP, Arends AJ, et al. Treatment of mid- and lower ureteric calculi: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy vs laser ureteroscopy. A comparison of cost, morbidity and effectiveness. Br J Urol 1998;81:31-5.
  6. Margalith I, Shapiro A. Anxiety and patient participation in clinical decision-making: the case of patients with ureteral calculi. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:419-27.
  7. Hendrikx AJ, Strijbos WE, de Knijff DW, Kums JJ, Doesburg WH, Lemmens WA. Treatment for extended-mid and distal ureteral stones: SWL or ureteroscopy? Results of a multicenter study. J Endourol 1999;13:727-33.
  8. Biri H, Küpeli B, Isen K, Sinik Z, Karaoùlan U, Bozk×rl× I. Treatment of lower ureteral stones:extracorporeal shock- wave lithotripsy or intracorporeal lithotripsy? J Endourol 1999;13:77-81.
  9. Yamaguchi K, Minei S, Yamazaki T, Kaya H, Okada K. Characterization of ureteral lesions assosiated with impacted stones. Int J Urol 1999;6:281-5.
  10. Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Dretler SP, Kahn RI, Lingeman JE, et al. Ureteral Stones Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. The American Urological Association. J Urol 1921;158:1915-21.
  11. Ehreth JT, Drach GW, Arnett ML, Barnett RB, Govan D, Lingeman J, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: multicenter study of kidney and upper ureters versus middle and lower ureters treatments. J Urol 1994;152:1379-85.
  12. Singh I, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Dogra PN, Ansari MS, Seth A, et al. Impact of power index, hydroureteronephrosis, stone size, and composition on the efficacy of in situ boosted ESWL for primary proximal ureteral calculi. Urology 2001;58:16-22.
  13. Coz F, Orvieto M, Bustos M, Lyng R, Stein C, Hinrichs A, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of 2000 urinary calculi with