Is the 4.5-F ureteroscope (Ultra-Thin) an alternative in the management of ureteric and renal pelvic stones?

Objectives: To compare the 7.5–9.5F ureteroscope (URS) with the 4.5–6.5F URS (Ultra-Thin) in terms of success and complication rates in adult patients with ureteric and renal pelvic stones. Patients and methods: In all, 41 patients treated with 7.5–9.5F semi-rigid URS (Group 1) and 33 patients treat...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Hakkı Uzun, Nezih Akça
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Taylor & Francis Group 2018
Materias:	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/0c6fcbf1809a4a668d1fb4c1ba2d20b6
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:0c6fcbf1809a4a668d1fb4c1ba2d20b6
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:0c6fcbf1809a4a668d1fb4c1ba2d20b62021-12-02T10:50:51ZIs the 4.5-F ureteroscope (Ultra-Thin) an alternative in the management of ureteric and renal pelvic stones?2090-598X10.1016/j.aju.2018.04.006https://doaj.org/article/0c6fcbf1809a4a668d1fb4c1ba2d20b62018-12-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090598X1830055Xhttps://doaj.org/toc/2090-598XObjectives: To compare the 7.5–9.5F ureteroscope (URS) with the 4.5–6.5F URS (Ultra-Thin) in terms of success and complication rates in adult patients with ureteric and renal pelvic stones. Patients and methods: In all, 41 patients treated with 7.5–9.5F semi-rigid URS (Group 1) and 33 patients treated with the Ultra-Thin (Group 2) were prospectively included in the study. All patients underwent holmium laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy. In each group, when the selected ureteroscopic intervention failed to reach or disintegrate the stone, the URS was replaced with the other one. Outcome criteria were: success and complication rates, stone size and stone surface area, operative time, laser time, usage of guidewire, and postoperative JJ-catheter placement. Results: The ureteroscopic lithotripsy in 36 of 41 (87.8%) and 24 of 33 (72.7%) patients was completed without a need to replace the URS with the other one in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.67). After replacement of the 7.5–9.5F URS with the Ultra-Thin for patients who failed in Group 1, the overall stone-free rate (SFR) improved to 97.5% (P = 0.014). In Group 2, after replacement of the Ultra-Thin with the 7.5–9.5F URS for the failed patients, the overall SFR improved to 96.9% (P = 0.02). There was no significant difference between the groups for complications. Postoperative JJ stenting was significantly less in Group 2 (21.2%) in comparison to Group 1 (46.3%) (P = 0.02). Conclusions: The Ultra-Thin has a similar success rate as the 7.5–9.5F URS in the treatment of ureteric stones and is a feasible option in patients in whom a conventional URS cannot be advanced through any segment of the ureter. Keywords: Ultra-Thin, Lithotripsy, UreteroscopyHakkı UzunNezih AkçaTaylor & Francis GrouparticleDiseases of the genitourinary system. UrologyRC870-923ENArab Journal of Urology, Vol 16, Iss 4, Pp 429-434 (2018)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923
spellingShingle	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923 Hakkı Uzun Nezih Akça Is the 4.5-F ureteroscope (Ultra-Thin) an alternative in the management of ureteric and renal pelvic stones?
description	Objectives: To compare the 7.5–9.5F ureteroscope (URS) with the 4.5–6.5F URS (Ultra-Thin) in terms of success and complication rates in adult patients with ureteric and renal pelvic stones. Patients and methods: In all, 41 patients treated with 7.5–9.5F semi-rigid URS (Group 1) and 33 patients treated with the Ultra-Thin (Group 2) were prospectively included in the study. All patients underwent holmium laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy. In each group, when the selected ureteroscopic intervention failed to reach or disintegrate the stone, the URS was replaced with the other one. Outcome criteria were: success and complication rates, stone size and stone surface area, operative time, laser time, usage of guidewire, and postoperative JJ-catheter placement. Results: The ureteroscopic lithotripsy in 36 of 41 (87.8%) and 24 of 33 (72.7%) patients was completed without a need to replace the URS with the other one in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.67). After replacement of the 7.5–9.5F URS with the Ultra-Thin for patients who failed in Group 1, the overall stone-free rate (SFR) improved to 97.5% (P = 0.014). In Group 2, after replacement of the Ultra-Thin with the 7.5–9.5F URS for the failed patients, the overall SFR improved to 96.9% (P = 0.02). There was no significant difference between the groups for complications. Postoperative JJ stenting was significantly less in Group 2 (21.2%) in comparison to Group 1 (46.3%) (P = 0.02). Conclusions: The Ultra-Thin has a similar success rate as the 7.5–9.5F URS in the treatment of ureteric stones and is a feasible option in patients in whom a conventional URS cannot be advanced through any segment of the ureter. Keywords: Ultra-Thin, Lithotripsy, Ureteroscopy
format	article
author	Hakkı Uzun Nezih Akça
author_facet	Hakkı Uzun Nezih Akça
author_sort	Hakkı Uzun
title	Is the 4.5-F ureteroscope (Ultra-Thin) an alternative in the management of ureteric and renal pelvic stones?
title_short	Is the 4.5-F ureteroscope (Ultra-Thin) an alternative in the management of ureteric and renal pelvic stones?
title_full	Is the 4.5-F ureteroscope (Ultra-Thin) an alternative in the management of ureteric and renal pelvic stones?
title_fullStr	Is the 4.5-F ureteroscope (Ultra-Thin) an alternative in the management of ureteric and renal pelvic stones?
title_full_unstemmed	Is the 4.5-F ureteroscope (Ultra-Thin) an alternative in the management of ureteric and renal pelvic stones?
title_sort	is the 4.5-f ureteroscope (ultra-thin) an alternative in the management of ureteric and renal pelvic stones?
publisher	Taylor & Francis Group
publishDate	2018
url	https://doaj.org/article/0c6fcbf1809a4a668d1fb4c1ba2d20b6
work_keys_str_mv	AT hakkıuzun isthe45fureteroscopeultrathinanalternativeinthemanagementofuretericandrenalpelvicstones AT nezihakca isthe45fureteroscopeultrathinanalternativeinthemanagementofuretericandrenalpelvicstones
_version_	1718396511574818816

Is the 4.5-F ureteroscope (Ultra-Thin) an alternative in the management of ureteric and renal pelvic stones?

Ejemplares similares