Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous?

Authors

  • Muhammet Fatih Kilinc Department of Urology, Ankara Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
  • Omer Gokhan Doluoglu Department of Urology, Ankara Training and Research Hospital, Ankara
  • Tolga Karakan Department of Urology, Ankara Training and Research Hospital, Ankara
  • Ayhan Dalkilic Department of Urology, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul
  • Nurettin Cem Sonmez Department of Urology, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul
  • Yasin Aydogmus Department of Urology, Etimesgut Military Hospital, Ankara
  • Berkan Resorlu Department of Urology, Canakkale 18 Mart University, Canakkale

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2745

Keywords:

proximal stones, shockwave lithotripsy, success rates, ureteroscopy

Abstract

Introduction: We assessed the effectiveness of ureteroscopy (URS) in proximal ureteral stones performed after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) failure, and determined outcomes in terms of success rate, complications, and operation time.

Methods: We analyzed data of patients with previous unsuccessful SWL (Group I) and the ones that did not have SWL or URS before (Group II) for proximal ureteral stones between December 2007 and August 2014. Group I included 346 patients who underwent complementary URS and Group II 209 patients who underwent primary URS. Success rates, operation time and complications were compared between groups.

Results: Success rates of complementary and primary URS were 78.9% and 80.9%, respectively. The difference in success rates was not statistically significant between groups (p = 0.57). The complication rates of complementary URS was 12.1%, and 9.5% in primary URS (p = 0.49). No statistically significant differences were noted in terms of gender, age, stone size and side, or lithotripter type between groups. The mean operation time and need for balloon dilatation were higher in complementary URS group compared to the primary URS group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Complementary URS may be used safely after SWL failure in proximal ureteral stones. Its success rate and morbidities are similar to primary URS, except for longer operation time and an increased need for balloon dilatation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2015-10-13

How to Cite

Kilinc, M. F., Doluoglu, O. G., Karakan, T., Dalkilic, A., Sonmez, N. C., Aydogmus, Y., & Resorlu, B. (2015). Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous?. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 9(9-10), E718–22. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2745

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 9-10 (2015): CUAJ October

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.