Prospective evaluation and classification of endoscopic findings for ureteral calculi.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 07 2020
23 07 2020
Historique:
received:
22
09
2019
accepted:
03
07
2020
entrez:
25
7
2020
pubmed:
25
7
2020
medline:
22
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Difficulty in performing ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) depends on endoscopic findings surrounding calculi. In this multicentre prospective cohort study of 185 patients with a single ureteral stone who underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy registered in the SMART study between January 2014 and February 2017, we established a classification of endoscopic findings and analysed risk factors for ureteral changes. We evaluated endoscopic findings (oedema, polyps, ureteral mucosa-stone adherence, and distal ureteric tightness) based on the SMART classification. Operative time and ureteral injuries were significantly correlated with endoscopic finding grades. Multivariate analyses revealed that mucosa-stone adherence (MSA) was strongly affected by hydronephrosis grade (odds ratio, 12.4; p = 0.022) and the interval before surgery (odds ratio, 1.10; p = 0.012). The cutoff value for MSA was 98 days, with a predictive accuracy of 0.78. Risk factors for distal ureteric tightness were age (odds ratio, 0.96; p = 0.004) and early intervention (odds ratio, 0.90; p = 0.023). The cutoff value was 34 days, with a predictive accuracy of 0.72. In conclusion, appropriate intervention around 34 days (limited to 98 days) after symptom onset is necessary for treating ureteral calculi. Even if intervention passed 98 days post-symptom onset, staged URSL, alternative procedures, and detailed informed consent should be planned in advance, assuming strong MSA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32704036
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69158-w
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-69158-w
pmc: PMC7378819
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
12292Références
Pradère, B., Doizi, S., Proietti, S., Brachlow, J. & Traxer, O. Evaluation of guidelines for surgical management of urolithiasis. J. Urol. 199, 1267–1271 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.111
Raheem, O. A., Khandwala, Y. S., Sur, R. L., Ghani, K. R. & Denstedt, J. D. Burden of urolithiasis: Trends in prevalence, treatments, and costs. Eur. Urol. Focus 3, 18–26 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.001
Sakamoto, S. et al. Chronological changes in the epidemiological characteristics of upper urinary tract urolithiasis in Japan. Int. J. Urol. 25, 373–378 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/iju.13552
Wu, C. F., Shee, J. J., Lin, W. Y., Lin, C. L. & Chen, C. S. Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J. Urol. 172, 1899–1902 (2004).
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000142848.43880.b3
Legemate, J. D. et al. Characteristics and outcomes of ureteroscopic treatment in 2650 patients with impacted ureteral stones. World J. Urol. 35, 1497–1506 (2017).
doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2028-2
Mugiya, S., Ito, T., Maruyama, S., Hadano, S. & Nagae, H. Endoscopic features of impacted ureteral stones. J. Urol. 171, 89–91 (2004).
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000100960.08768.81
Morgentaler, A., Bridge, S. S. & Dretler, S. P. Management of the impacted ureteral calculus. J. Urol. 143, 263–266 (1990).
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)39928-7
Kuroda, S. et al. A new prediction model for operative time of flexible ureteroscopy with lithotripsy for the treatment of renal stones. PLoS ONE 13, e0192597 (2018).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192597
Geavlete, P., Georgescu, D., Nita, G., Mirciulescu, V. & Cauni, V. Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: A single-center experience. J. Endourol. 20, 179–185 (2006).
doi: 10.1089/end.2006.20.179
Sugihara, T. et al. A nomogram predicting severe adverse events after ureteroscopic lithotripsy: 12 372 patients in a Japanese national series. BJU Int. 111, 459–466 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11594.x
Ito, H. The most reliable preoperative assessment of renal stone burden as a predictor of stone-free status after flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy: A single-center experience. Urology 80, 524–528 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.001
Coninck, D. E. et al. Systematic review of ureteral access sheaths: Facts and myths. BJU Int. 122, 959–969 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/bju.14389
Degirmenci, T. et al. Outcomes of ureteroscopy for the management of impacted ureteral calculi with different localizations. Urology. 80, 811–815 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.05.007
Yoshida, T. et al. Ureteral wall thickness as a preoperative indicator of impacted stones in patients with ureteral stones undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Urology. 106, 45–49 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.047
Deliveliotis, C. et al. Management and follow-up of impacted ureteral stones. Urol. Int. 70, 269–272 (2003).
doi: 10.1159/000070133
Dretler, S. P. & Young, R. H. Stone granuloma: A case of ureteral stricture. J. Urol. 150, 1800–1802 (1993).
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)35899-8
Bolton, D., Stoller, M. L. & Irby, P. Fibroepithelial uretreral polyps and urolithiasis. Urology. 44, 582–587 (1994).
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(94)80066-9
Ludwig, D. J. et al. Treatment and outcome of fibroepithelial ureteral polyps: A systematic literature review. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 9, E631–E637 (2015).
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2878
Wolf, J. S. Jr., Elashry, O. M. & Clayman, R. V. Long-term results of endoureterotomy for benign ureteral and ureteroenteric strictures. J. Urol. 158, 759–764 (1997).
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64308-8
Türk, C. et al. EAU guideline on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur. Urol. 69, 475–482 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041
Sun, X. et al. Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: Randomized comparison of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. J. Endourol. 22, 913–917 (2008).
doi: 10.1089/end.2007.0230
Traxer, O. & Thomas, A. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J. Urol. 189, 580–584 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.197
Kourambas, J., Byrne, R. R. & Preminger, G. M. Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy?. J. Urol. 165, 789–793 (2001).
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66527-5
De Coninck, V. et al. Systematic review of ureteral access sheaths: Facts and myths. BJU Int. 122, 959–969 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/bju.14389
Koo, K. C. et al. The impact of preoperative α-adrenergic antagonists on ureteral access sheath insertion force and the upper limit of force required to avoid ureteral mucosal injury: A randomized controlled study. J. Urol. 199, 1622–1630 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.09.173
Takano, Y. et al. Age-related changes of elements in human ureter. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 74, 117–125 (2000).
doi: 10.1385/BTER:74:2:117
Ellenbogen, P. H., Scheible, F. W., Talner, L. B. & Leopold, G. R. Sensitivity of gray scale ultrasound in detecting urinary tract obstruction. Am. J. Roentgenol. 130, 731–733 (1978).
doi: 10.2214/ajr.130.4.731
Tiselius, H. G. & Andersson, A. Stone burden in an average Swedish population of stone formers requiring active stone removal: How can the stone size be estimated in the clinical routine?. Eur. Urol. 43, 275–281 (2003).
doi: 10.1016/S0302-2838(03)00006-X
Okada, S. et al. Development of the one-surgeon basketing technique in flexible ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi. Videourology 32. https://doi.org/10.1089/vid.2018.0005 (2018).
Kanda, Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 48, 452–458 (2013).
doi: 10.1038/bmt.2012.244