Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous?

Kılınç, Muhammet Fatih; Doluoğlu, Ömer Gökhan; Karakan, Tarkan; Dalkılıç, Ayhan; Sönmez, Nurettin Cem; Aydogmus, Yasin; Reşorlu, Berkan

doi:10.5489/cuaj.2745

Cited by 11 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a study by Kilinc et al , URS was performed safely and successfully after SWL [ 14 ]. Patients whose stones are broken with SWL but do not achieve spontaneous passage or develop steinstrasse may have difficulty with endoscopic procedures due to ureteral stricture or stone-related mucosal injury and oedema.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can intervals in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy sessions affect success in the treatment of upper ureteral stones?

Turan

Efioglu

Danacıoğlu

et al. 2018

Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionManaging upper ureteral stones with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has been done for many years. However, no conclusive data have been found on the intervals required between repeated SWL sessions.AimTo identify the most optimal intervals between SWL sessions.Material and methodsBetween September 2015 and December 2016, 80 patients undergoing elective outpatient lithotripsy who required repeated SWL sessions for ureteral stones were evaluated. These patients were categorised into two groups according to different SWL session intervals. The intervals between SWL sessions (n = 40) for the first group lasted one day, whereas those for the second group (n = 40) lasted 1 week. The data recorded during SWL included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, total number of shocks, total energy used and number of sessions. The stone clearance rates, number of urinary tract infections, complication rates and VAS scores were compared between the two groups.ResultsAll patients’ clinical outcomes after SWL therapy are shown in Table I. The stone clearance rate for group 1 was 70%, whereas that for group 2 was 72.5% (p = 0.805). Additionally, the number of urinary tract infections, complications and VAS scores were similar for both groups. In group 1, 3 patients had steinstrasse, two suffered from severe renal colic, and one had a urinary tract infection. In group 2, 3 patients endured steinstrasse, and 2 patients experienced severe renal colic during the study.ConclusionsShort-interval SWL sessions are safe and effective for treating upper ureteral stones, and such sessions do not increase complication rates.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can intervals in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy sessions affect success in the treatment of upper ureteral stones?

Turan

Efioglu

Danacıoğlu

et al. 2018

Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kilinc et al [15] compared the success and complication rates in patients with "complementary URS after previous unsuccessful ESWL" with "URS as first-line modality." They found that success rates of complementary and primary URS were 78.9 and 80.9%, respectively ( p = 0.57).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although SWL is the recommended first-line treatment and can be performed as a non-invasive outpatient procedure, its disadvantages include need for auxiliary procedures, long duration of treatment, inability to dissect a large or impacted stone, anatomical and physical abnormalities of patients, and technical difficulties [15] . In recent years, with the improvement in the designs of ureterorenoscopes, stone disintegration systems, and endourologic techniques, most ureteral stones can be managed by URS [9] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation with Decision Trees of Efficacy and Safety of Semirigid Ureteroscopy in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Calculi

Sancak

Kılınç²,

Yücebaş³

2017

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The decision on the choice of proximal ureteral stone therapy depends on many factors, and sometimes urologists have difficulty in choosing the treatment option. This study is aimed at evaluating the factors affecting the success of semirigid ureterorenoscopy (URS) using the “decision tree” method. Materials and Methods: From January 2005 to November 2015, the data of consecutive patients treated for proximal ureteral stone were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 920 patients with proximal ureteral stone treated with semirigid URS were included in the study. All statistically significant attributes were tested using the decision tree method. Results: The model created using decision tree had a sensitivity of 0.993 and an accuracy of 0.857. While URS treatment was successful in 752 patients (81.7%), it was unsuccessful in 168 patients (18.3%). According to the decision tree method, the most important factor affecting the success of URS is whether the stone is impacted to the ureteral wall. The second most important factor affecting treatment was intramural stricture requiring dilatation if the stone is impacted, and the size of the stone if not impacted. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the impacted stone, intramural stricture requiring dilatation and stone size may have a significant effect on the success rate of semirigid URS for proximal ureteral stone. Further studies with population-based and longitudinal design should be conducted to confirm this finding.

show abstract

“…In clinical practice, URS is often employed as salvage therapy in SWL-resistant stones. However, only a few studies (7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13) have determined the impact of previous unsuccessful SWL on the outcomes of URS with conflicting results. Holland et al reported that URS was associated with a lower SFR and higher complication rate when performed after unsuccessful SWL (7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Irer et al also demonstrated that complications were significantly higher in patients with a previous SWL (8). In contrast, several studies showed that previous failed SWL had no impact on the SFR and complications of URS (9)(10)(11)(12)(13). Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis, for the first time, to compare the outcomes of URS performed as a primary procedure (SWL−) and salvage URS (SWL+) after failed SWL.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy?—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wang¹,

Liao²,

Di³

et al. 2021

Transl Androl Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous?

Abstract: Complementary URS may be used safely after SWL failure in proximal ureteral stones. Its success rate and morbidities are similar to primary URS, except for longer operation time and an increased need for balloon dilatation.

Cited by 11 publications

References 19 publications

Can intervals in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy sessions affect success in the treatment of upper ureteral stones?

Can intervals in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy sessions affect success in the treatment of upper ureteral stones?

Evaluation with Decision Trees of Efficacy and Safety of Semirigid Ureteroscopy in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Calculi

Does previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy?—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About