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
  • [31] PREDICTION OF URETEROSCOPIC FINDING THROUGH UNENHANCED CT OF URETERAL STONES
    Choi, Seung Kwon
    Lim, Tae Joon
    Lee, Hyung Lae
    Yoo, Koo Han
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2012, 26 : A376 - A376
  • [32] Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy vs Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Large Ureteral Stones
    Choi, Ae Duck
    Seo, Seong Il
    Kwon, Joonbeom
    Kim, Bum Soo
    JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2019, 23 (02)
  • [33] Comparisons with emergency and elective ureteroscopic removal of stone
    Kim, D. H.
    Cho, K. S.
    Ham, W. S.
    Kim, Y. T.
    Moon, H. S.
    Choi, H. Y.
    Park, S. Y.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY SUPPLEMENTS, 2012, 11 (01) : E493 - U72
  • [34] EFFECTIVENESS OF NTRAP® DURING URETEROSCOPIC LITHOTRIPSY FOR UPPER URETERAL STONES
    Min, Seung Ki
    Kim, Sung Bin
    Choi, Jae Young
    Kim, Yoo Seok
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2012, 26 : A378 - A378
  • [35] The efficacy of tamsulosin in the treatment of ureteral stones in emergency department patients
    Ferre, R. M.
    Wasielewski, J. N.
    Perron, A. D.
    Strout, T. D.
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2007, 50 (03) : S9 - S10
  • [36] The Role of Routine Ureteral Stenting Following Uncomplicated Ureteroscopic Treatment for Upper Ureteral and Renal Stones: A Randomized Control Trial
    Allam, Christopher L.
    Aden, James K.
    Reed, Amy M.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2023, 37 (03) : 257 - 263
  • [37] Rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stones: A meta-analysis
    Wang, Qing
    Guo, Jiachao
    Hu, Henglong
    Lu, Yuchao
    Zhang, Jiaqiao
    Qin, Baolong
    Wang, Yufeng
    Zhang, Zongbiao
    Wang, Shaogang
    PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (02):
  • [38] Ureteroscopic lithotripsy with pressure-measuring ureteral access sheath for large ureteral stones
    Huang, Xin
    He, Xiaolong
    Zhai, Qiliang
    Song, Leming
    Du, Chuance
    Deng, Xiaolin
    MINIMALLY INVASIVE THERAPY & ALLIED TECHNOLOGIES, 2024, 33 (03) : 157 - 162
  • [39] Efficacy and Safety of Emergency Ureteroscopic Management of Ureteral Calculi
    Youn, Jun Ho
    Kim, Sung Soo
    Yu, Ji Hyeong
    Sung, Luck Hee
    Noh, Choong Hee
    Chung, Jae Yong
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 53 (09) : 632 - 635
  • [40] TREATMENT OF URETERAL STONES
    AUVRAY, P
    ACTA UROLOGICA BELGICA, 1977, 45 (01): : 92 - 112