Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Prospective Randomized Study of Treatment of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Ureterolithotripsy Versus Laparoscopy
2011; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 187; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.054
ISSN1527-3792
AutoresAntônio Corrêa Lopes Neto, Fernando Korkes, Jarques Lúcio Silva, Rodrigo Dal Moro Amarante, Mário Henrique Elias de Mattos, Marcos Tobias‐Machado, Antonio Carlos Lima Pompeo,
Tópico(s)Ureteral procedures and complications
ResumoNo AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Jan 2012Prospective Randomized Study of Treatment of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Ureterolithotripsy Versus Laparoscopy Antonio Corrêa Lopes Neto, Fernando Korkes, Jarques Lúcio Silva, Rodrigo Dal Moro Amarante, Mario H. Elias Mattos, Marcos Tobias-Machado, and Antonio Carlos Lima Pompeo Antonio Corrêa Lopes NetoAntonio Corrêa Lopes Neto Equal study contribution. More articles by this author , Fernando KorkesFernando Korkes Equal study contribution. More articles by this author , Jarques Lúcio SilvaJarques Lúcio Silva More articles by this author , Rodrigo Dal Moro AmaranteRodrigo Dal Moro Amarante More articles by this author , Mario H. Elias MattosMario H. Elias Mattos More articles by this author , Marcos Tobias-MachadoMarcos Tobias-Machado More articles by this author , and Antonio Carlos Lima PompeoAntonio Carlos Lima Pompeo More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.054AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: The best treatment modalities for large proximal ureteral stones are controversial, and include extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureterolithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and open surgery. To the best of our knowledge extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, semirigid ureterolithotripsy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy have not been previously compared for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. Therefore, we compared these modalities for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: A total of 48 patients with large proximal ureteral stones (greater than 1 cm) were prospectively randomized and enrolled in the study at a single institution between 2008 and 2010. Eligible patients were assigned to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, semirigid ureterolithotripsy or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Results: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy had a 35.7% success rate, semirigid ureterolithotripsy 62.5% and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy 93.3%. Stone-free rates showed a statistically significant difference among the groups (p = 0.005). Patients treated with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy vs semirigid ureterolithotripsy vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy required fewer treatment sessions (mean ± SD 1.9 ± 0.3 vs 2.2 ± 0.6 vs 2.9 ± 1.4, p = 0.027). Neither major nor long-term complications were observed. Conclusions: Proximal ureteral stone treatment requires multiple procedures until complete stone-free status is achieved. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy is associated with higher success rates and fewer surgical procedures, but with more postoperative pain, longer procedures and a longer hospital stay. Although it is associated with the highest success rates for large proximal ureteral calculi, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy remains a salvage, second line procedure, and it seems more advantageous than open ureterolithotomy. At less well equipped centers, where semirigid ureterolithotripsy or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is not available, it remains a good treatment option. References 1 : Diagnosis and treatment of ureteral calculi. J Bras Nefrol2009; 31: 55. Google Scholar 2 : A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of transureteral and shock wave lithotripsy–which is the best minimally invasive modality to treat distal ureteral calculi in children?. J Urol2010; 184: 1106. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Management of upper ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol1987; 138: 720. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Retrograde endoscopic management of ureteral stones more than 2 cm in size. Urology2006; 67: 1164. Google Scholar 5 : Laparoscopic management of ureteral calculi: a report of 123 cases. Urol J2007; 4: 138. Google Scholar 6 : Critical analysis of treatment options for proximal ureteral calculus. Einstein2006; 4: 232. Google Scholar 7 : A prospective randomized study comparing shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi. Urology2009; 74: 1216. Google Scholar 8 : Management of 10–15-mm proximal ureteral stones: ureteroscopy or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy?. Urology2008; 71: 28. Google Scholar 9 : Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and transureteral lithotripsy in the treatment of impacted lower ureteral calculi. Urol J2006; 3: 75. Google Scholar 10 : Comparative analysis of upper ureteral stones (> 15 mm) treated with retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy and ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy. Int Urol Nephrol2010; 42: 897. Google Scholar 11 : Retrograde, antegrade, and laparoscopic approaches for the management of large, proximal ureteral stones: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol2008; 22: 2677. Google Scholar 12 : Patient position and semi-rigid ureteroscopy outcomes. Int Braz J Urol2009; 35: 542. Google Scholar 13 : The impact of the Dornier Compact Delta lithotriptor on the management of primary ureteric calculi. Eur Urol2003; 44: 482. Google Scholar 14 : 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol2007; 52: 1610. Google Scholar 15 : 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol2007; 178: 2418. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Prospective trial comparing laparoscopy and open surgery for management of impacted ureteral stones. Actas Urol Esp2009; 33: 1108. Google Scholar 17 : Endoscopic features of impacted ureteral stones. J Urol2004; 171: 89. Link, Google Scholar 18 : Flexible ureteroscopy is effective for proximal ureteral stones in both obese and nonobese patients: a two-year, single-surgeon experience. Urology2011; 77: 36. Google Scholar 19 : Rapid extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi in colic versus noncolic patients. Eur Urol2007; 52: 1223. Google Scholar 20 : Ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy of impacted ureteral calculi. Int Braz J Urol2006; 32: 295. Google Scholar ABC Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byAssimos D, Krambeck A, Miller N, Monga M, Murad M, Nelson C, Pace K, Pais V, Pearle M, Preminger G, Razvi H, Shah O and Matlaga B (2018) Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART IIJournal of Urology, VOL. 196, NO. 4, (1161-1169), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2016. Volume 187Issue 1January 2012Page: 164-168 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsureteral calculilithotripsylaparoscopyclinical trialureteroscopyMetricsAuthor Information Antonio Corrêa Lopes Neto Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Fernando Korkes Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Jarques Lúcio Silva More articles by this author Rodrigo Dal Moro Amarante More articles by this author Mario H. Elias Mattos More articles by this author Marcos Tobias-Machado More articles by this author Antonio Carlos Lima Pompeo More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Referência(s)