Preoperatif ve İntraoperatif Klinik Bulguların Üreter Taşı Endoskopik Tedavi Başarısına Etkisi

Year 2016, Volume: 43 Issue: 2, 285 - 289, 01.06.2016

Akın Soner Amasyalı Mehmet Şirin Ertek Mevlüt Türe Haluk Erol

Abstract

Amaç: Üreter taşı nedeniyle üreterorenoskopi (URS) yapılan
hastaların klinik verileri ile taşsızlık oranları arasındaki
ilişkiyi retrospektif olarak araştırmayı amaçladık.
Yöntemler: Çalışmamız kliniğimizde üreter taşı tanısıyla
URS yapılan 83 hastanın verilerinin retrospektif analizinden
oluşturuldu. Preoperatif ve intraoperatif klinik veriler
kaydedildi. Operasyondan 2 hafta sonrasında 4 milimetreden
büyük fragmanın saptanmaması başarı olarak kabul
edildi. Klinik veriler ile taşsızlık oranı arasındaki ilişki
uygun istatistik yöntemlerle değerlendirildi.
Bulgular: Ortalama yaş 50.48±14,41 ve erkek/kadın oranı
2 olarak bulundu. Toplam taşsızlık oranı %83,2 idi. Komplikasyon
olarak 7 hastada postoperatif ateş, 2 hastada
üreteral perforasyon gelişti. Yaş, cinsiyet, taraf, taş sayısı,
çapı, hacmi, en geniş yüzey alanı, ortalama Hounsfield
ünitesi, üreteral balon dilatasyon kullanımı, litotriptör cinsi
(pnömotik, pnömotik + lazer, lazer) açısından başarılı ve
başarısız hastalar arasında anlamlı farklılık saptanmazken,
preoperatif hidronefroz derecesi (düşük dereceli:
%95,2 vs yüksek dereceli: %69,4, p=0,006), taş lokasyonu
(distal üreter: %92,9 vs proksimal üreter: %72,5,
p=0,014) ve operasyon süresi (başarılı: 60,0 (45,0-60,0)
dak. vs başarısız: 85,0 (60,0-97,5) dak. p=0,048) açısından
taşsızlık oranında farklılık olduğu bulundu. Ayrıca antiretropulsif
Stone cone kullanımında başarı %91,7, kullanılmayanlarda
%81,4 olarak saptandı (p=0,347).
Sonuç: Başarı oranını artırmak ve ek prosedür gereksinimini
azaltmak için özellikle hidronefrotik proksimal üreter
taşlarında antiretropulsif aletlerin veya fleksible URS kullanımının
tercih edilmesi gerektiğini düşünüyoruz.

Keywords

Üreterorenoskopi, üreter taşı, endoskopik taş tedavi başarısI

The Effect of Preoperative and Intraoperative Clinical Findings on Success of Endoscopic Management of Ureteral Stone

Abstract

Objective: We investigated the relationship between clinical data of patients who underwent ureterorenoscopy (URS) due to ureteral stone and stone free rates retro­spectively. Methods: Clinical data of 83 patients who underwent URS in our clinic were retrospectively analyzed. Pre­operative and intraoperative clinical parameters were recorded. Success was defined as not to detect > 4mm stone fragments 2 weeks after the operation. Appropriate statistical analysis were done for evaluating relationship between stone free rate and clinical data. Results: Mean age was 50.48±14.41 and male to female ratio was 2. Overall stone free rate was 83.2%. Postop­erative fever, ureteral perforation were detected in 7 and 2 patients, respectively. There were no differences between success and failure groups in terms of age, sex, opera­tion side, stone number, diameter, size, surface area, mean Hounsfield unit, usage of balloon dilatation. How­ever with respect to preoperative grade of hydronephrosis (low grade: 95.2% vs high grade: 69.4%, p=0.006), stone location (distal ureter: 92.9% vs proximal ureter: 72.5%, p=0.014) and operation time (success: 60.0 (45.0-60.0) min. vs failure: 85.0 (60.0-97.5) min. p=0.048) we found statistically significant differences between the study groups. In addition stone free rate was 91.7% with anti-retropulsion device Stone cone, whereas it was 81.4% without any ureteral occlusion (p=0.347). Conclusion: We assume that anti-retropulsion devices or flexible URS should be prefered especially in patients with hydronephrotic proximal ureteral stone for higher stone free rate with lower auxiliary procedure.

Keywords

Ureterorenoscopy, ureteral stone, endoscopic stone management success

References

• 1. J Fasihuddin Q, Hasan AT. Ureteroscopy (URS): an effective interventional and diagnostic modality. Pak Med Assoc 2002;52:510-512.
• 2. Watson GM, Landers B, Nauth Misir R, et al. Development in ureteroscopes, techniques and accessories associated with laser lithotripsy. World J Urol1993;11:19.
• 3. Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, et al. Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol 2004;172:1899-1902.
• 4. Hamano S, Nomura H, Kinsui H, et al. Experience with ureteral stone management in 1,082 patients using semirigid ureteroscopes. Urol Int 2000;65:106-111.
• 5. Elashry OM, Elgamasy AK, Sabaa MA, et al. Ureteroscopic management of lower ureteric calculi: a 15-year single-centre experience. BJU Int 2008;102:1010-1017.
• 6. Delvecchio FC, Preminger GM. Management of residual stones. Urol Clin N Am 2000;27:347-354.
• 7. Sun L, Peng FL. Simultaneous saline irrigation during retrograde rigid ureteroscopic lasertripsy for the prevention of proximal calculus migration.Can Urol Assoc J 2013;7:E65- 68.
• 8. Yuksel OH, Akan S, Urkmez A, et al. Efficacy and safety of semirigid ureteroscopy combined with holmium: YAG laser in the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi: Is it a good alternative treatment option of flexible ureteroscopy for developing countries? J Pak Med Assoc 2015;65:1193- 1196.
• 9. Cabrera FJ, Preminger GM, Lipkin ME. Antiretropulsion devices. Curr Opin Urol 2014;24:173-178.
• 10. Ahmed M, Pedro RN, Kieley S, et al. Systematic evaluation of ureteral occlusion devices: insertion, deployment, stone migration, and extraction. Urology 2009;73:976–980.
• 11. Farahat YA, Elbahnasy AE, Elashry OM. A randomized prospective controlled study for assessment of different ureteral occlusion devices in prevention ofstone migration during pneumatic lithotripsy. Urology 2011;77:30–35.
• 12. Dretler SP. Ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi: prevention of stone migration. J Endourol 2000;14:565–567.
• 13. Ursiny M, Eisner BH. Cost-effectiveness of antiretropulsion devices for ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Urol 2013;189:1762–1766.
• 14. Georgescu D, Mulţescu R, Geavlete B, Geavlete P. Intraoperative complications after 8150 semirigid ureteroscopies for ureteral lithiasis: risk analysis and management. Chirurgia (Bucur) 2014 May-Jun;109:369-374.
• 15. Librenjak D, Šitum M, Gugić D, et al. Ureterorenoscopic treatment of ureteral stones--influence of operator’s experience and skill on the procedure outcome. Croat Med J 2011;52:55-60.
• 16. Moufid K, Abbaka N, Touiti D, et al. Large impacted upper ureteral calculi: A comparative study between retrograde ureterolithotripsy and percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy in the modified lateral position. Urol Ann 2013;5:140-146.
• 17. Elsheemy MS, Maher A, Mursi K, et al. Holmium:YAG laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy for ureteric calculi in children: predictive factors for complications and success.World J Urol 2014;32:985-990.
• 18. Süer E, Gülpinar Ö, Özcan C, et al. Predictive factors for flexible ureterorenoscopy requirement after rigid ureterorenoscopy in cases with renal pelvic stones sized 1 to 2 cm. Korean J Urol 2015;56:138-142.
• 19. Rifaioğlu MM, Demirbas O, Davarcı M. The importance of hydronephrosis in percutaneous nephrolithotomy operation. Dicle Med J 2013;40:441-445.