Translational andrology and urology · 2021
Stone extraction with loop ureteral catheter versus ureteroscopy in small distal ureteral stones-retrospective comparison of 547 consecutive patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rehme Christian, Burchert Carolin, Tosun Mustafa, Szarvas Tibor, Nagy Nadine, Ruebben Herbert, Hadaschik Boris, Niedworok Christian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether stone extraction with a loop ureteral catheter (LUC) in distal ureteral stones is associated with a higher frequency of ureteral strictures compared to treatment with primary ureteroscopic stone removal (p-URS) or ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (l-URS).
METHODS: Five hundred and forty-seven consecutive patients were primarily endourologically treated for distal ureteral stones in our department between 2005 and 2019 and included in the study protocol. Data was retrospectively obtained from the patients' charts and medical reports as well as from office-based urologists. Data analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney test or Student's t-test as appropriate. A level of P<0.05 was assigned statistical significance.
RESULTS: Four hundred and twelve patients were treated by URS (p-URS n=304, l-URS n=108) and another 135 by LUC stone extraction. Median follow-up was 41 [2-159] months. There was no difference between the groups concerning age, gender, proportion of patients with ureteral stenting, operating time, hospitalization or readmission rates. The number of ureteric strictures was small in all procedures [n=3 (1.0%) in p-URS, n=2 (1.9%) in l-URS and n=2 (1.5%) in LUC] and there was no difference between the groups concerning this serious complication (p-URS vs. LUC: P=0.6465; l-URS vs. LUC: P=0.9999).
CONCLUSIONS: In small distal stones, LUC stone extraction still is an alternative to URS procedures in stone management with comparable results concerning postinterventional ureteral strictures. In experienced hands, it still has its value in accurately selected patients.
METHODS: Five hundred and forty-seven consecutive patients were primarily endourologically treated for distal ureteral stones in our department between 2005 and 2019 and included in the study protocol. Data was retrospectively obtained from the patients' charts and medical reports as well as from office-based urologists. Data analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney test or Student's t-test as appropriate. A level of P<0.05 was assigned statistical significance.
RESULTS: Four hundred and twelve patients were treated by URS (p-URS n=304, l-URS n=108) and another 135 by LUC stone extraction. Median follow-up was 41 [2-159] months. There was no difference between the groups concerning age, gender, proportion of patients with ureteral stenting, operating time, hospitalization or readmission rates. The number of ureteric strictures was small in all procedures [n=3 (1.0%) in p-URS, n=2 (1.9%) in l-URS and n=2 (1.5%) in LUC] and there was no difference between the groups concerning this serious complication (p-URS vs. LUC: P=0.6465; l-URS vs. LUC: P=0.9999).
CONCLUSIONS: In small distal stones, LUC stone extraction still is an alternative to URS procedures in stone management with comparable results concerning postinterventional ureteral strictures. In experienced hands, it still has its value in accurately selected patients.