Emergency versus elective ureteroscopic treatment of ureteral stones

被引:13
|
作者
Matani, Yousef S. [1 ]
Al-Ghazo, Mohammed A. [1 ]
Al-Azab, Rami S. [1 ]
Hani, Osamah Bani [1 ]
Ghalayini, Ibrahim F. [1 ]
Hani, Ibrahim Bani [1 ]
机构
[1] Jordan Univ Sci & Technol, King Abdullah Univ Hosp, Dept Surg & Urol, Fac Med, Irbid, Jordan
来源
关键词
SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY; URINARY-TRACT CALCULI; CONTEMPORARY MANAGEMENT; LASER LITHOTRIPSY; COMPLICATIONS; HOLMIUM;
D O I
10.5489/cuaj.1402
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: This retrospective study investigates the role of the emergency ureteroscopic (URS) approach in the definitive treatment of ureteric stones. Methods: We reviewed all patients admitted for ureteric stones from May 2003 to December 2010. Those who underwent URS stone treatment were selected and stratified into emergency (EMG) and elective groups (ELG). Emergency URS is defined as URS being performed within 24 hours of admission to the emergency room. The main indication for emergency treatment was refractory ureteric colic in spite of narcotic analgesia. Both groups were statistically compared in terms of their patient-, stone-and outcome-related variables. The overall success rate was defined by the clearance of the stone and/or presence of residual fragments (<3 mm) at the end of 4-week follow-up period. Results: In total, 903 patients were suitable for analysis with 244 and 659 patients in the EMG and ELG, respectively. Age, sex and comorbidities were comparable in both groups. Average ages were 43.4 +/- 15.31 and 45.6 +/- 13.24 years among EMG and ELG, respectively. Stones had an average size of 0.92 +/- 0.49 (in the EMG group) and 0.96 +/- 0.53 cm (in the ELG group). We found that 61.1% and 65.7% of stones were distally located in the EMG and ELG, respectively. EMG had a longer operative time (69 +/- 21.03 vs. 57 +/- 13.45 minutes) with comparable average hospital stays (1.9 days). Intra-operative double-J stents or ureteric catheter insertion was noted in 72.5 and 67.7% of EMG and ELG, respectively. The overall complication rates were reported in 13.1% in EMG and 14.4% in ELG. A higher rate of ureteric injuries (early and late) was documented in the EMG group (7% vs. 5.6%). Most of these injuries were minor and manageable without additional procedure and/or general anesthesia. Success was achieved in 90.6% and 91.8% of the EMG and ELG groups, respectively. Conclusion: With recent advances in technology, the growing trend toward one-stage definitive treatment, patient acceptability and rising concerns over financial aspects, emergency URS treatment of ureteric stones is evolving as a standard initial management option.
引用
收藏
页码:E470 / E474
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Emergency versus elective ureteroscopy for the management of ureteral stones
    Gadzhiev, Nariman K.
    Akopyan, Gagik N.
    Tursunova, Farzona, I
    Afyouni, Andrew S.
    Korolev, Dmitry O.
    Tsarichenko, Dmitry G.
    Rapoport, Leonid M.
    Okhunov, Zhamshid
    Bhaskar, Somani
    Malkhasyan, Vigen A.
    UROLOGIA JOURNAL, 2022, 89 (01) : 79 - 84
  • [2] EMERGENCY VERSUS ELECTIVE URETEROSCOPIC TREATMENT: WHAT ROLE OF THE EMERGENCY URETEROSCOPY APPROCH IN THE DEFINITIVE TREATMENT OF URETERIC STONES?
    Rabah, Benrabah
    Mohcine, Azli
    Farid, Nechiche
    Samir, Boumelit
    Bachir, Souid M.
    Bachir, Souid M.
    Mustapha, Lounici
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 193 (04): : E315 - E315
  • [3] Emergency ureteroscopic management of ureteral stones: Why not?
    Osorio, Luis
    Lima, Estevao
    Soares, Jose
    Autorino, Riccardo
    Versos, Rui
    Lhamas, Arnaldo
    Marcelo, Filinto
    UROLOGY, 2007, 69 (01) : 27 - 31
  • [4] Emergency ureteroscopic management of ureteral stones: Why not? Editorial comment
    Danuser, Hansjoerg
    UROLOGY, 2007, 69 (01) : 31 - 32
  • [5] Epidemiological characteristics and ureteroscopic treatment of large ureteral stones
    Sofer, Mario
    Gadiel, Itai
    Greenstein, Alexander
    Keren-Paz, Gal
    Chen, Juza
    Matzkin, Haim
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2006, 20 : A35 - A35
  • [6] FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPIC TREATMENT FOR RENAL AND UPPER URETERAL STONES
    Nutahara, Kikuo
    Sugata, Akio
    Hayashi, Kenjirou
    Itaya, Naosu
    Hara, Hidhiko
    Yamaguchi, Takeshi
    Tambo, Mitsuhiro
    Tanbo, Mitsuhiro
    Okegawa, Takatsugu
    Higashihara, Eiji
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2011, 25 : A261 - A262
  • [7] Ureteroscopic treatment of multiple distal-ureteral stones
    Gurbuz, Zafer Gokhan
    Mimaroglu, Saban
    Gurkan, Levent
    Oder, Mehmet
    Verim, Levent
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2006, 20 (12) : 1022 - 1024
  • [8] Epidemiological characteristics and ureteroscopic treatment of large ureteral stones
    Sofer, M.
    Greenstein, A.
    Keren Paz, G.
    Chaim, J.
    Chen, J.
    Matzkin, H.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY SUPPLEMENTS, 2007, 6 (02) : 270 - 270
  • [9] Epidemiological characteristics and ureteroscopic treatment of large ureteral stones
    Sofer, Mario
    Greenstein, Alexander
    Chen, Juza
    Ben-Chaim, Jacob
    Matzkin, Haim
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2007, 177 (04): : 475 - 475
  • [10] Benefits of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy for the treatment of impacted ureteral stones
    Yagisawa, T
    Kobayashi, C
    Ishikawa, N
    Kobayashi, H
    Toma, H
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2001, 15 (07) : 697 - 699