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
  • [21] Predictors of Ureteral Strictures after Retrograde Ureteroscopic Treatment of Impacted Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Literature Review
    Tonyali, Senol
    Yilmaz, Mehmet
    Tzelves, Lazaros
    Emiliani, Esteban
    De Coninck, Vincent
    Keller, Etienne Xavier
    Miernik, Arkadiusz
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (10)
  • [22] Ureteral Wall Thickness as a Preoperative Indicator of Impacted Stones in Patients With Ureteral Stones Undergoing Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy
    Yoshida, Takashi
    Inoue, Takaaki
    Omura, Naoto
    Okada, Shinsuke
    Hamamoto, Shuzo
    Kinoshita, Hidefumi
    Matsuda, Tadashi
    UROLOGY, 2017, 106 : 45 - 49
  • [23] Retrograde Ureteroscopic Treatment for Upper Ureteral Stones: A 5-Year Retrospective Study
    Yu, Weimin
    Cheng, Fan
    Zhang, Xiaobin
    Yang, Sixing
    Ruan, Yuan
    Xia, Yue
    Rao, Ting
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2010, 24 (11) : 1753 - 1757
  • [24] Comparative study on ureteroscopic lithotripsy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of unilateral upper ureteral stones
    Fang, You-qiang
    Qiu, Jian-guang
    Wang, De-juan
    Zhan, Hai-lun
    Situ, Jie
    ACTA CIRURGICA BRASILEIRA, 2012, 27 (03) : 266 - 270
  • [25] Is ureteral catheterization necessary after ureteroscopic lithotripsy for uncomplicated upper ureteral stones?
    Gunlusoy, Bulent
    Degirmenci, Tansu
    Arslan, Murat
    Kozacyoglu, Zafer
    Minareci, Suleyman
    Ayder, Ali Ryza
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2008, 22 (08) : 1645 - 1648
  • [26] EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE THERAPY VERSUS URETEROSCOPIC LITHOTRIPSY FOR THE TREATMENT OF DISTAL URETERAL STONES: RESULTS FROM A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED STUDY
    Verze, P.
    Imbimbo, C.
    Palmieri, A.
    Longo, N.
    Creta, M.
    Fusco, F.
    Mangiapia, F.
    Arcaniolo, D.
    Buonopane, R.
    Mirone, V.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY SUPPLEMENTS, 2010, 9 (02) : 101 - 101
  • [27] ELECTIVE TREATMENT OF URETERAL STONES WITH EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY
    CARINI, M
    SELLI, C
    FIORELLI, C
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 1987, 13 (05) : 289 - 292
  • [28] ESWL VERSUS ENDOUROLOGY IN THE TREATMENT OF DISTAL URETERAL STONES
    NEMETH, T
    SENN, E
    BANDHAUER, K
    THERAPEUTISCHE UMSCHAU, 1988, 45 (03) : 161 - 166
  • [29] Ureteroscopic management of lower ureteral stones: Two years' experience
    Bilen C.Y.
    Mahalati K.
    Şahin A.
    Tekin I.
    Özen H.
    Remzi D.
    International Urology and Nephrology, 1997, 29 (3) : 301 - 306
  • [30] IMPACTED PROXIMAL URETERAL STONES TREATED BY RETROGRADE URETEROSCOPIC APPROACH
    Geavlete, Petrisor
    Multescu, Razvan
    Geavlete, Bogdan
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2011, 25 : A179 - A179