Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Ureteroscopic Stone Removal in the Distal Ureter. Why Change?
1997; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 157; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/s0022-5347(01)64679-2
ISSN1527-3792
AutoresNelson Rodrígues Netto, Joaquim de Almeida Claro, Sandro C. Esteves, Enrico Ferreira Martins de Andrade,
Tópico(s)Ureteral procedures and complications
ResumoNo AccessJournal of UrologyClinical Urology: Original Article1 Jun 1997Ureteroscopic Stone Removal in the Distal Ureter. Why Change? Nelson Rodrigues Netto, Joaquim de Almeida Claro, Sandro C. Esteves, and Enrico F.M. Andrade Nelson Rodrigues NettoNelson Rodrigues Netto , Joaquim de Almeida ClaroJoaquim de Almeida Claro , Sandro C. EstevesSandro C. Esteves , and Enrico F.M. AndradeEnrico F.M. Andrade View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64679-2AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We compared our experience with ureteroscopic stone basket manipulation under fluoroscopic guidance to ultrasound ureterolithotripsy for distal ureteral stone removal. Materials and Methods: Retrospectively, we analyzed the medical records of 981 patients with ureteral calculi between January 1994 and December 1995, of whom 483 (49%) were treated for stones in the lower ureter and constituted our study group. The decision of when to perform lithotripsy (group 2) versus a basket procedure (group 1) was based on a prospective nonrandomized study and both groups were compared historically. All 322 patients in group 1 (mean age 49 years, range 14 to 86) primarily underwent ureteroscopic stone basket manipulation using the 4-wire Segura* basket. If the calculus could not be removed with the basket and another procedure was necessary, the case was considered a failure. The 161 patients in group 2 (mean age 37 years, range 14 to 74) underwent initially ultrasound ureterolithotripsy for stone fragmentation followed or not by removal of the fragments with the basket. Stone size did not differ significantly between groups 1 (mean 0.9 cm., range 0.6 to 1.7) and 2 (mean 0.8 cm., range 0.7 to 2.0). Ureteroscopy was performed in both groups with epidural anesthesia and on an outpatient basis in the majority of cases. *Van-tec, Spencer, Indiana. Results: The stone-free rate after 1 procedure was 98.1 and 95.6% in groups 1 and 2, respectively. For group 2 versus group 1 the operative time was longer (mean 50, range 25 to 90 versus mean 19 minutes, range 11 to 40, respectively, p <0.001), the complication rate was greater (16.1 versus 4.3%, respectively, p <0.001) and average hospital stay was longer (2.1 versus 0.15 day, respectively, p <0.001). Conclusions: Ureteroscopic stone treatment with basket manipulation under fluoroscopic guidance or ultrasound ureterolithotripsy provided a high stone-free rate. However, stone removal with the basket manipulation technique should be considered the first choice for treatment of small distal ureteral calculi based on the minimal morbidity, and short operative and recovery times. References 1 : First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J. Urol.1982; 127: 417. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Report of the United States cooperative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J. Urol.1986; 135: 1127. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of urinary calculi: experience in treatment of 3,278 patients using the Siemens Lithostar and Lithostar Plus. J. Urol.1991; 145: 484. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Technique versus technology: what is the most appropriate method for the removal of ureteral calculi. J. Urol.1994; 152: 66. Abstract, Google Scholar 5 : Ureteroscopic treatment of lower ureteral calculi in the era of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: from a developing country point of view. J. Urol.1993; 150: 1395. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Treatment options for ureteral calculi: endourology or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J. Urol.1991; 146: 5. Link, Google Scholar 7 : Cost and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi. J. Urol.1992; 148: 1095. Link, Google Scholar 8 : Ureteral calculi: treatment in transition. J. Urol.1988; 139: 1286. Link, Google Scholar 9 : In situ ESWL versus ureteroscopy: the case for ureteroscopy. J. Endourol.1989; 3: 301. Google Scholar 10 : Methodology for endoscopic treatment of ureteral calculi. J. Urol.1986; 135: 909. Link, Google Scholar 11 : Transurethral ureteroscopy in men using juvenile cystoscopy equipment. J. Urol.1979; 122: 152. Link, Google Scholar 12 : Transurethral ureteroscopy. A current urological procedure. Arch. Esp. Urol.1980; 33: 445. Google Scholar 13 : Primary choice of intervention for distal ureteric stone: ureteroscopy or ESWL? Brit. J. Urol.1988; 62: 13. Google Scholar 14 : Ureteral calculi: natural history and treatment in an era of advanced technology. J. Urol.1991; 145: 263. Link, Google Scholar 15 : Ureteroscopy without routine balloon dilation: an outcome assessment. J. Urol.1992; 147: 1238. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Safety and efficacy of pediatric ureteroscopy for management of calculous disease. J. Urol.1993; 149: 1082. Link, Google Scholar 17 : Optimal therapy for the distal ureteral stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy. J. Urol.1994; 152: 62. Link, Google Scholar From the Division of Urology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa de Sao Paulo and Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil.© 1997 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byCHEN Y, CHEN J, WONG W, YANG S, HSIEH C and WANG C (2018) Is Ureteral Stenting Necessary After Uncomplicated Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy? A Prospective, Randomized Controlled TrialJournal of Urology, VOL. 167, NO. 5, (1977-1980), Online publication date: 1-May-2002.Schuster T, Russell K, Bloom D, Koo H and Faerber G (2018) Ureteroscopy For The Treatment Of Urolithiasis In ChildrenJournal of Urology, VOL. 167, NO. 4, (1813-1816), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2002.PEARLE M, NADLER R, BERCOWSKY E, CHEN C, DUNN M, FIGENSHAU R, HOENIG D, McDOUGALL E, MUTZ J, NAKADA S, SHALHAV A, SUNDARAM C, WOLF J and CLAYMAN R (2018) PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL COMPARING SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY AND URETEROSCOPY FOR MANAGEMENT OF DISTAL URETERAL CALCULIJournal of Urology, VOL. 166, NO. 4, (1255-1260), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2001.SCHUSTER T, HOLLENBECK B, FAERBER G and WOLF J (2018) COMPLICATIONS OF URETEROSCOPY: ANALYSIS OF PREDICTIVE FACTORSJournal of Urology, VOL. 166, NO. 2, (538-540), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2001.TEICHMAN J and KAMERER A (2018) USE OF THE HOLMIUM: YAG LASER FOR THE IMPACTED STONE BASKETJournal of Urology, VOL. 164, NO. 5, (1602-1603), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2000.DELVECCHIO F, KUO R and PREMINGER G (2018) CLINICAL EFFICACY OF COMBINED LITHOCLAST AND LITHOVAC STONE REMOVAL DURING URETEROSCOPYJournal of Urology, VOL. 164, NO. 1, (40-42), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2000.HOSKING D, McCOLM S and SMITH W (2018) IS STENTING FOLLOWING URETEROSCOPY FOR REMOVAL OF DISTAL URETERAL CALCULI NECESSARY?Journal of Urology, VOL. 161, NO. 1, (48-50), Online publication date: 1-Jan-1999. Volume 157Issue 6June 1997Page: 2081-2083 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 1997 by American Urological Association, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Nelson Rodrigues Netto More articles by this author Joaquim de Almeida Claro More articles by this author Sandro C. Esteves More articles by this author Enrico F.M. Andrade More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Referência(s)