Stone extraction with loop ureteral catheter versus ureteroscopy in small distal ureteral stones-retrospective comparison of 547 consecutive patients.
Ureteral calculus
loop catheter
ureter
ureteroscopy (URS)
urolithiasis
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
entrez:
3
2
2021
pubmed:
4
2
2021
medline:
4
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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). 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 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 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
RESULTS
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33532299
doi: 10.21037/tau-20-909
pii: tau-10-01-87
pmc: PMC7844532
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
87-95Informations de copyright
2021 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-909). Dr. BH reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Jansen, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, personal fees and non-financial support from Astellas, grants from German Cancer Aid, other from Uromed, personal fees from Lightpoint Medical, personal fees from ABX, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Br J Urol. 1982 Jun;54(3):223-5
pubmed: 7104582
Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Feb;3(1):18-26
pubmed: 28720363
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):475-82
pubmed: 26344917
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Feb;95(8):e2847
pubmed: 26937915
Int Urol Nephrol. 1972;4(3):215-20
pubmed: 4669393
World J Urol. 2017 May;35(5):819-826
pubmed: 27604373
Korean J Urol. 2015 Jan;56(1):63-7
pubmed: 25598938
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):468-74
pubmed: 26318710
Eur Urol. 2014 Jul;66(1):102-9
pubmed: 24507782
Urol Ann. 2019 Jul-Sep;11(3):276-281
pubmed: 31413506
Urologe A. 1981 Sep;20(5):269-73
pubmed: 7197422
J Urol. 1973 Aug;110(2):178-80
pubmed: 4722605
Urology. 1983 Sep;22(3):243-5
pubmed: 6623769
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014 Mar;9(3):506-12
pubmed: 24311706
World J Urol. 2017 Sep;35(9):1301-1320
pubmed: 28213860
J Endourol. 2014 Feb;28(2):131-9
pubmed: 24147820
World J Urol. 2010 Apr;28(2):187-92
pubmed: 19506884
J Urol. 2007 Dec;178(6):2418-34
pubmed: 17993340