SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Online Türk Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2

Average, and Maximum Ureteral Wall Thickness are Predictor Factor for Ureteroscopy Outcomes?

Ortalama ve Maksimum Üreter Duvar Kalınlığı Üreteroskopi Sonuçları için Öngörücü Faktör müdür?

Murat Demir(YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5029-8800
İlyas Dündar(VAN YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1429-077X
Recep Eryılmaz(VAN YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4506-8784
Rahmi Aslan(VAN YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4563-0386
Kasım Ertaş(VAN YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4300-1399
Fatma Durmaz(VAN YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3089-7165
Mehmet Sevim(VAN YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0792-1075
Kadir Körpe(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, VAN SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0001-7159-1272
Kerem Taken(VAN YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4370-4222
Pages
215–220
Publication Date
2022-06-01
🏛️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)

Objective: The aim of our study is to investigate the effect of average and maximum ureteral wall thicknesses measured by computed tomography before the operation on ureteroscopy results.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of our study is to investigate the effect of average and maximum ureteral wall thicknesses measured by computed tomography before the operation on ureteroscopy results.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Objective: The aim of our study is to investigate the effect of average and maximum ureteral wall thicknesses measured by computed tomography before the operation on ureteroscopy results.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Objective: The aim of our study is to investigate the effect of average and maximum ureteral wall thicknesses measured by computed tomography before the operation on ureteroscopy results.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Tomografi · üreter duvar kalınlığı · üreter taşı

Abstract

Objective: The aim of our study is to investigate the effect of average and maximum ureteral wall thicknesses measured by computed tomography before the operation on ureteroscopy results.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı operasyon öncesi bilgisayarlı tomografi ile ölçülen ortalama ve maksimum üreter duvar kalınlıklarının üreteroskopi sonuçları üzerindeki etkisini araştırmaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Demir, M., Dündar, İ., Eryılmaz, R., Aslan, R., Ertaş, K., Durmaz, F., Sevim, M., Körpe, K., Taken, K. (2022). Average, and Maximum Ureteral Wall Thickness are Predictor Factor for Ureteroscopy Outcomes?. Online Türk Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 215–220. https://doi.org/10.26453/otjhs.1059414

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Prasad D, Satani Y, Singh S, Gajera D. A prospective comparative study of ureterorenoscopy with and without DJ stenting for the management of ureteric stones. Int. Surg J. 2021;8(12):3606-3614. doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20214753
  2. Okçelik S, Kurul NO, Kiziloz H, Temel MC, Yesildal C. Factors affecting success of semi-rigid ureterorenoscopy in proximal ureter stone treatment. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2021;31(1):65-69. doi:10.29271/jcpsp.2021.01.65
  3. Taken, K, Parlak M, Günes et al. The urinary system ınfections caused by extended-spectrum-B-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae strains. East J Med. 2016;21(1):31-37.
  4. Tran TY, Bamberger JN, Blum KA, et al. Predicting the ımpacted ureteral stone with computed tomography. Urology. 2019;130:43-47. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.04.020
  5. Sarica K, Kafkasli A, Yazici Ö, et al. Ureteral wall thickness at the impacted ureteral stone site: a critical predictor for success rates after SWL. Urolithiasis. 2015;43(1):83-88. doi:10.1007/s00240-014-0724-6
  6. Jendeberg J, Geijer H, Alshamari M, Cierzniak B, Lidén M. Size matters: The width and location of a ureteral stone accurately predict the chance of spontaneous passage. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(11):4775-4785. doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4852-6
  7. May M, Schönthaler M, Gilfrich C, et al. Interrater reliability and clinical impact of the Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS) grading system for ureteral lesions after ureteroscopy: Results of the German prospective multicenter BUSTER project. Urologe A. 2018;57(2):172-180. doi:10.1007/s00120-017-0565-3
  8. Sarica K, Eryildirim B, Akdere H, Karagoz MA, Karaca Y, Sahan A. Predictive value of ureteral wall thickness (UWT) assessment on the success of internal ureteral stent insertion in cases with obstructing ureteral calculi. Urolithiasis. 2021;49(4):359-365. doi:10.1007/s00240-020-01233-3
  9. Yoshida T, Inoue T, Taguchi M, Omura N, Kinoshita H, Matsuda T. Ureteral wall thickness as a significant factor in predicting spontaneous passage of ureteral stones of ≤ 10 mm: a preliminary report. World J Urol. 2019;37(5):913-919. doi:10.1007/s00345-018-2461-x
  10. Tonyalı Ş, Yılmaz M, Karaaslan M, Ceylan C, Işıkay L. Prediction of stone-free status after single-session retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones. Turk J Urol. 2018;44(6):473-477. doi:10.5152/tud.2018.88615
  11. Yamashita S, Kohjimoto Y, Iguchi T, Nishizawa S, Kikkawa K, Hara I. Ureteral wall volume at ureteral stone site is a critical predictor for shock wave lithotripsy outcomes: comparison with ureteral wall thickness and area. Urolithiasis. 2020;48(4):361-368. doi:10.1007/s00240-019-01154-w
  12. Dede O, Şener NC, Baş O, Dede G, Bağbancı MŞ. Does morbid obesity influence the success and complication rates of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for upper ureteral stones? Turk J Urol. 2015;41(1):20-23. doi:10.5152/tud.2015.94824
  13. Selvi I, Baydilli N, Tokmak TT, Akinsal EC, Basar H. CT-related parameters and Framingham score as predictors of spontaneous passage of ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm: results from a prospective, observational, multicenter study. Urolithiasis. 2021;49(3):227-237. doi:10.1007/s00240-020-01214-6
  14. Mugiya S, Ito T, Maruyama S, Hadano S, Nagae H. Endoscopic features of impacted ureteral stones. J Urol. 2004;171(1):89-91. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000100960.08768.81
  15. Ventimiglia E, Godínez AJ, Traxer O, Somani BK. Cost comparison of single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: A systematic review. Turk J Urol. 2020;46(Supp. 1):40-45. doi:10.5152/tud.2020.20223
  16. Guzelburc V, Guven S, Boz MY, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of ureteral access sheath-related ınjuries using post-ureteroscopic lesion scale. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26(1):23-26. doi:10.1089/lap.2015.0294
  17. Al-Naimi A, Alobaidy A, Majzoub A, Ibrahim TA. Evaluation of ureteroscopy outcome in a teaching hospital. Turk J Urol. 2016;42(3):155-161. doi:10.5152/tud.2016.17037