Retrospective comparative study of rigid and flexible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2016 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
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 |