You are in:Home/Publications/Impacted ≥ 10‑mm pelvic ureteric stone treatment: laser lithotripsy alone or in combination with pneumatic lithotripsy—a prospective, comparative study

Dr. Hisham mohamed abdelhay elgharby :: Publications:

Title:
Impacted ≥ 10‑mm pelvic ureteric stone treatment: laser lithotripsy alone or in combination with pneumatic lithotripsy—a prospective, comparative study
Authors: Hisham Alazaby1,2* , Ahmed Mohey1, Rabea Omar1, Ahmed Sebaey1 and Tarek Gharib1
Year: 2020
Keywords: Pelvic ureter stones, Impacted, Combined, Pneumatic lithotripsy, Laser lithotripsy
Journal: Not Available
Volume: Not Available
Issue: Not Available
Pages: Not Available
Publisher: Not Available
Local/International: International
Paper Link: Not Available
Full paper Hisham mohamed abdelhay elgharby_Alazaby2020_Article_Impacted10-mmPelvicUretericSto.pdf
Supplementary materials Not Available
Abstract:

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcome of ureteroscopic lithotripsy of combined pneumatic and laser versus laser lithotripsy alone for the treatment of impacted pelvic ureteral stones. Ninety patients with impacted stones 10 mm or more were selected and divided into two equal groups. The combined group included patients who treated by pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) and laser lithotripsy (LL), while those in the laser group were treated by LL alone via retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy. Exclusion criteria included urinary tract infection, radiolucent stones, ipsilateral concurrent stone, previous ureteral surgery, urinary tract anomalies, musculoskeletal deformities, renal failure and pregnancy. Any stone retropulsion or any residual stone detected 1 month postoperative was considered failure. Results: The stone-free rate was 88.8% and 91.1% for laser and combined groups, respectively, which was statistically insignificant (p ≥ 0.05). Operative complications were 11.11% versus 4.4% for laser and combined groups, respectively, which is significant statistically (p ˂ 0.05). No ureteral perforation and no stricture were developed in the combined group, while one perforation and two strictures were developed in the laser group. The DJ stenting and second session lithotripsy requirements were 64.4% versus 51.1% and 15.5% versus 8.8% for laser versus combined group, respectively, and each was statistically significant. Conclusion: When treating impacted stones, combining PL to LL can decrease the complication rate, DJ stenting and second session lithotripsy requirement, while preserving laser fragmentation capabilities.

Google ScholarAcdemia.eduResearch GateLinkedinFacebookTwitterGoogle PlusYoutubeWordpressInstagramMendeleyZoteroEvernoteORCIDScopus