Evaluation Of Efficacy And Safety Of Balloon Dilatation İn Ureterorenoscopy For The Treatment Of Distal Ureteral Stones
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of balloon dilatation in ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of distal ureteral stones.
Materials and Methods: The retrospective data of patients who underwent URS for distal ureter stones between January 2008 and June 2018 were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups according the need of balloon dilatation. Group 1 was consisted of balloon dilatation (-) patients and Group 2 was cosnsited of balloon dilatation (+) patients. These two groups were compared in terms of demographic of patients, stone characteristics, operation outcomes and complications.
Results: Group 1 was consisted of 359 (70.4%) male and 151 (29.6%) female; group 2 was consisted of 32 (80%) male and 8 (20%) female patients (p=0.197). The mean age of patients was 43.3±14.3 years in group 1 and 44.2±14.9 years in group 2 (p=0.704). Operation time was significantly higher in group 2 (32.8±20.5 min vs 40.1±16.0; p=0.029). Although stone free rate was significantly higher in group 1 (%98.6 vs %90.0; p=0.017); the complication rate was similar between groups (%3.2 vs %2.5; p=0.787).
Conclusions: The same session balloon dilatation for ureteral structures in ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of distal ureteral stones seems safe and cost-effective method. Although this procedure may lead to elongation in operation times and decrease the stone free rates; it does not affect the complication rates and prevents patients from needing a new operation for same stone. Further randomized and prospective studies are needed for long term outcomes of this procedure.
Keywords
References
- 1. Ramello A, Vitale C, Marangella M. Epidemiology of nephrolithiasis. J Nephrol. 2000; 13:45-50.
- 2. Pak CY. Kidney stones. Lancet. 1998; 351:1797-1801 .
- 3. Cakiroglu B, Eyyupoglu E, Tas T. The influence of stone size, skin to stone distance and hydronephrosis on extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy session and shock wave numbers in ureteral stones. World J Nephrol Urol. 2013; 2:60–64.
- 4. Ahmed AF, Al-Sayed AY. Tamsulosin versus alfuzosin in the treatment of patients with distal ureteral stones: prospective, randomized, comparative study. Korean J Urol. 2010; 51:193–197.
- 5. Heers H, Turney BW. Trends in urological stone disease: A 5-year update of hospital episode statistics. BJU Int. 2016; 118:785–789.
- 6. Best SL, Nakada SY. Flexible ureteroscopy is effective for proximal ureteral stones in both obese and non-obese patients: a two-year, single-surgeon experience. Urology. 2011; 77:36–39.
- 7. Cetti RJ, Biers S, Keoghane SR. The difficult ureter: what is the incidence of pre-stenting?.Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011; 93:31–33.
- 8. Stoller ML, Wolf JS Jr Hofmann R, Marc B. Ureteroscopy without routine balloon dilation: an outcome assessment. J Urol. 1992; 147:1238–1242.
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Urology
Journal Section
Research Article
Authors
Volkan Şen
0000-0003-2832-0682
Türkiye
Bora İrer
0000-0002-7719-9033
Türkiye
Güner Yıldız
0000-0002-0495-9863
Türkiye
Publication Date
June 12, 2020
Submission Date
April 16, 2019
Acceptance Date
September 10, 2019
Published in Issue
Year 2020 Volume: 15 Number: 2