Evaluation of ureteroscopy outcome in a teaching hospital

Al‐Naimi, Abdulla; Alobaidy, Abdulqadir; Majzoub, Ahmad; Ibrahim, Tarek

doi:10.5152/tud.2016.17037

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, only 6 of 200 stones were located in the upper ureter, and none were larger than 10 mm. Al-Naimi et al (18) evaluated URS results in 1182 patients who underwent URS under SA or GA in a training hospital. They did not indicate an exact number, but most patients underwent GA and they found that stone location and stone impaction were predictive factors for an adverse outcome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of the Anesthetic Method on the Outcomes of Ureteroscopy for Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Multi-center Study of the Society of Urological Surgery Aegean Study Group

Kızılay¹,

İrer²,

Şen³

et al. 2018

jus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Objective: To analyze the effect of the anesthesia method (spinal and general) on the outcome of ureteroscopy (URS) in patients treated for proximal ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: Patients, who underwent URS for proximal ureteral stones at various urology clinics in Turkiye, were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to the anesthesia method performed; the procedure was performed under spinal anesthesia (SA) in group 1 and general anesthesia (GA) in group 2. Patients' demographic, perioperative data and complication rates were compared between the two groups in a retrospective manner. Results: There were 309 and 329 patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The mean stone area and Hounsfield unit in GA group were higher (p<0.001 and p=0.007, respectively). In the GA group, the need for double J stent was more frequent (p<0.001). In the SA group, the rate of push-back of stone into the collecting system was higher (p=0.017). According to the Clavien classification system and the others, complication rates were similar between the two groups (p>0.05). The rate of success of URS, which is accepted as complete stone-free status, was higher in the SA group (p=0.041). Conclusion: URS, which is used in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones, has a high success rate, independent of the anesthesia method used. It is important to keep in mind the patient's comorbidities prior to selecting the anesthesia method and that the stone area and the Hounsfield unit are the important factors affecting the outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of the Anesthetic Method on the Outcomes of Ureteroscopy for Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Multi-center Study of the Society of Urological Surgery Aegean Study Group

Kızılay¹,

İrer²,

Şen³

et al. 2018

jus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the incidence of postoperative surgical complications can be associated with multiple variables, such as complexity of the procedure, patient characteristics, and the surgeon's case volume. [11][12][13][14] Scoring systems or nomograms were developed using the aforementioned variables in order to assess procedural complexity and predict outcomes, which helps with risk assessment for patient counseling, surgery 150 preparation, prediction of the postoperative phase, and standardized reporting of the outcome measures. Generally, a clinical scoring system should be easy to calculate and utilize rapidly, without significant training or specialized software.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

External Validation of the S.T.O.N.E. Score in Predicting Stone-Free Status After Rigid Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy

Sirirak

Sangkum

Phengsalae

et al. 2021

RRU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Size, Topography, Obstruction, Number, and Evaluation of Hounsfield units (S.T.O.N.E.) scoring system has been proposed as a novel prognostic surgical classification for urolithiasis in predicting success rate and complications. Objective: We carried out an externally validated S.T.O.N.E. score on rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy (rURS). Materials and Methods: The data of patients who had undergone rURS between 2012 and 2019 at a tertiary referral center were audited retrospectively. The S.T.O.N.E. score was calculated based on factors determined through preoperative computed tomography images and was analyzed in association with stone-free rate (SFR), operating time, surgical complications, and length of stay (LOS). Results: A total of 155 patients were included in the study with a median stone size of 10 mm (7-12) and a median S.T.O.N.E. score of 9 (8-10). The overall SFR was 89.68%. SFRs were 100.0%, 97.83%, and 77.42% in low (5), moderate (6-9), and high (10-13) score groups, respectively. The S.T.O.N.E. score (p = 0.002) and stone size (p = 0.037) were predictive factors for SFR in multivariate analysis. Moreover, there was a significant correlation between the S.T.O.N.E. score and operative time, LOS, and presence of complications (r = 0.22, p = 0.006; r = 0.30, p < 0.001; and r = 0.27, p < 0.001, respectively). The area under the curve of the receiving operator characteristics' curve for the S.T.O.N.E. score was 0.815. Conclusion: The S.T.O.N.E. scoring system is simple and effective in predicting postoperative outcomes; therefore, this score would be a valuable tool in clinical planning for every patient who undergoes rURS.

show abstract

“…In another recent study, SA or GA has been induced for sURS, and the results obtained were evaluated. GA was induced for most patients, and it was emphasized that the location and impaction of the stone is a predictive factor for negative surgical results [ 15 ]. Similarly, in another study, Hollenbeck et al have researched the effectiveness of URS operations in proximal and distal ureteral stones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is spinal anesthesia an alternative and feasible method for proximal ureteral stone treatment?

Topaktaş

Altin

Aydın

et al. 2020

Cent european J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction We investigated the clinical, operational, and pain parameters of patients who underwent semirigid ureterorenoscopy (sURS) under spinal anesthesia (SA) and general anesthesia (GA) for proximal ureter stones. Material and methods Patients treated with sURS after diagnosis of proximal ureter stones between January 2014 and May 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups (the SA group and the GA group) based on the type of anesthesia used. Perioperative variables and operation results were evaluated and compared. Success was defined as the patient being stone-free as observed on low-dose non-contrast computed tomography performed in the first month postoperatively. Results The SA and GA groups had 40 and 32 patients, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of age (p = 0.593), gender (p = 0.910), average stone size (p = 0.056), side (p = 0.958), or density (p = 0.337). Based on the Clavien classification system, complication rates between the two groups were similar. The postoperative visual pain scale in the SA group was statistically significantly lower (p <0.05) than in the GA group. Success rates in the SA and GA groups were found to be 90% (36/40) and 93.7% (30/32), respectively, with no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.819). Conclusions Ureterorenoscopy, which is performed for proximal ureter stone treatment in adult patients, is a reliable surgical method that can be performed under both SA and GA. SA offers the advantage of reduced postoperative pain as compared to GA.

show abstract

Evaluation of ureteroscopy outcome in a teaching hospital

Cited by 8 publications

References 25 publications

Effect of the Anesthetic Method on the Outcomes of Ureteroscopy for Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Multi-center Study of the Society of Urological Surgery Aegean Study Group

Effect of the Anesthetic Method on the Outcomes of Ureteroscopy for Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Multi-center Study of the Society of Urological Surgery Aegean Study Group

External Validation of the S.T.O.N.E. Score in Predicting Stone-Free Status After Rigid Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy

Is spinal anesthesia an alternative and feasible method for proximal ureteral stone treatment?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About