Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Galal,Ehab Mohamad
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Anwar,Ahmad Zaki, El-Bab,Tarek Khalaf Fath, Abdelhamid,Amr Mohamad
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382016000500967
Resumo: ABSTRACT Background: We analyzed the outcome and complications of rigid (R-URS) and flexible (F-URS) ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treatment of proximal ureteric stone (PUS). Subjects and methods: Retrospective data of 135 patients (93 males and 42 females) submitted to R-URS and F-URS for treatment of PUS in the period between July 2013 and January 2015 were investigated. (R-URS, group 1) was performed in 72 patients while 63 patients underwent (F-URS, group 2).We compared the 2 groups for success, stone characteristics, operative time, intraoperative and postoperative complications. Results: The overall stone free rate (SFRs) was 49/72 (68%) in group 1 and 57/63 (91%) patients in group 2, (P=0.005). The operative time was shorter in group 1 in comparison to group 2 with statistically significant difference (P=0.005). There was not any statistically significant difference between 2 groups in complication rate (P=0.2). Conclusıon: Both R-URS and F-URS could be a feasible option for treatment of PUS. R-URS is less successful for treatment of PUS and should be used cautiously and with availability of F-URS.
id SBU-1_bd3c76ebec83cbb446248b9d75d4b631
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382016000500967
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stonesCalculiUreteroscopyUreterLithotripsyABSTRACT Background: We analyzed the outcome and complications of rigid (R-URS) and flexible (F-URS) ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treatment of proximal ureteric stone (PUS). Subjects and methods: Retrospective data of 135 patients (93 males and 42 females) submitted to R-URS and F-URS for treatment of PUS in the period between July 2013 and January 2015 were investigated. (R-URS, group 1) was performed in 72 patients while 63 patients underwent (F-URS, group 2).We compared the 2 groups for success, stone characteristics, operative time, intraoperative and postoperative complications. Results: The overall stone free rate (SFRs) was 49/72 (68%) in group 1 and 57/63 (91%) patients in group 2, (P=0.005). The operative time was shorter in group 1 in comparison to group 2 with statistically significant difference (P=0.005). There was not any statistically significant difference between 2 groups in complication rate (P=0.2). Conclusıon: Both R-URS and F-URS could be a feasible option for treatment of PUS. R-URS is less successful for treatment of PUS and should be used cautiously and with availability of F-URS.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2016-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382016000500967International braz j urol v.42 n.5 2016reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0644info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGalal,Ehab MohamadAnwar,Ahmad ZakiEl-Bab,Tarek Khalaf FathAbdelhamid,Amr Mohamadeng2016-10-18T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382016000500967Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2016-10-18T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones
title Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones
spellingShingle Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones
Galal,Ehab Mohamad
Calculi
Ureteroscopy
Ureter
Lithotripsy
title_short Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones
title_full Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones
title_fullStr Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones
title_full_unstemmed Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones
title_sort Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones
author Galal,Ehab Mohamad
author_facet Galal,Ehab Mohamad
Anwar,Ahmad Zaki
El-Bab,Tarek Khalaf Fath
Abdelhamid,Amr Mohamad
author_role author
author2 Anwar,Ahmad Zaki
El-Bab,Tarek Khalaf Fath
Abdelhamid,Amr Mohamad
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Galal,Ehab Mohamad
Anwar,Ahmad Zaki
El-Bab,Tarek Khalaf Fath
Abdelhamid,Amr Mohamad
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Calculi
Ureteroscopy
Ureter
Lithotripsy
topic Calculi
Ureteroscopy
Ureter
Lithotripsy
description ABSTRACT Background: We analyzed the outcome and complications of rigid (R-URS) and flexible (F-URS) ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treatment of proximal ureteric stone (PUS). Subjects and methods: Retrospective data of 135 patients (93 males and 42 females) submitted to R-URS and F-URS for treatment of PUS in the period between July 2013 and January 2015 were investigated. (R-URS, group 1) was performed in 72 patients while 63 patients underwent (F-URS, group 2).We compared the 2 groups for success, stone characteristics, operative time, intraoperative and postoperative complications. Results: The overall stone free rate (SFRs) was 49/72 (68%) in group 1 and 57/63 (91%) patients in group 2, (P=0.005). The operative time was shorter in group 1 in comparison to group 2 with statistically significant difference (P=0.005). There was not any statistically significant difference between 2 groups in complication rate (P=0.2). Conclusıon: Both R-URS and F-URS could be a feasible option for treatment of PUS. R-URS is less successful for treatment of PUS and should be used cautiously and with availability of F-URS.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-10-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382016000500967
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382016000500967
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0644
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.42 n.5 2016
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318075033419776