Üreteroskopi sırasında görülen komplikasyonlar ve öngörücü faktörler

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmamızda kliniğimizde üreteroskopi sırasında yaşanan komplikasyonları, bu komplikasyonları öngörücü faktörleri değerlendirmeyi amaçladık.Gereç ve Yöntem: Kliniğimizde 2001-2014 yılları arasında üreter taşı için üreteroskopi yapılan hastaların dosyaları retrospektif olarak incelendi. Toplam 1015 hastaya uygulanan 1214 ünite üreteroskopi çalışmaya dahil edildi. Komplikasyonları evrelendirmek için Clavien- Dindo sınıflaması kullanıldı. Hastaların demografik verileri, taşın lokalizasyonu, boyutu ve impakte olması, litotripsi için kullanılan enerji kaynağı, taş kırma stratejisi, peroperatif gelişen komplikasyonlar incelendi. Komplikasyon gelişen Grup-1 ve gelişmeyen Grup-2 hastalar arasında karşılaştırma yapıldı.Bulgular: Hastaların ortalama yaşları 43± 17 olup; tek seansta taşsızlık oranı % 89 olarak bulundu. Hastaların median takip süresi 7 ay olup, bu süre komplikasyon gelişen grupta 12 aydır. Toplam 227 % 22 hastada komplikasyon gelişti. Bunların 80’i % 35 medikal tedaviyle düzeltilebilen evre 1-2 komplikasyonlardı. Taşın üst üreterde p= 0,041 , 10 mm’den büyük p= 0,02 ve impakte p= 0,016 olmasının komplikasyonu öngörücü faktörler olduğunu gözlemledik. Kır-bırak yöntemi uygulananlarda daha az komplikasyon geliştiğini gördük % 1,3 vs. 7,6 p=0,001 . Hastaların yaşının, cinsiyetinin, üreteroskopi yapılan tarafın ve yapan kişinin üroloji uzmanı yada asistanı olması , işlem başında balon dilatasyon uygulamanın ve kullanılan taş kırma enerji kaynağının komplikasyon gelişen grupla diğer grup arasında farklı olmadığını gördük. Sonuç: Çalışmamızda üreter taşı için yapılan üreteroskopide taşın üst üreterde, 10 mm’den büyük veya impakte olmasının komplikasyon gelişimini artırdığı, kır-bırak yönteminin ise azalttığını tespit ettik

Keywords

• Üreteroskopi,komplikasyon,impakte taş

Complications encountered during the ureteroscopy and predictive factors

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to evaluate complications that occurred during ureteroscopy and predictive factors.Material and Method: Patients’ files were retrospectively analyzed, who underwent ureteroscopy for ureteral stone between 2001-2014. Totally 1015 patients and 1214 renal units ureteroscopy interventions were included in our study. Clavien- Dindo classification was used for evaluation of the complications. Patients’ demographics, stone localization, stone size, impacted or not, power supply used for lithotripsy, strategy for the stone breaking and complications that occurred peri-operatively were analyzed. Patients with Group-1 and without Group-2 complications were compared.Results: Patients’ mean age was 43± 17 190 years, stone free rate was 89% at first session. Median follow time was 7 months in all patients and 12 months inpatients with complications. Overall, 227 22 % had complications. Of the patients, 80 had grade 1 or 2 complications. Upper stone localization p=0.041 , stone size bigger than 10 mm p=0.02 and impacted stones p= 0.016 were predictive factors for development of complications. Less complication rate was detected in patients who underwent ureteroscopy with “smash and go” strategy 1.3% vs. 7.6 % p=0.001 . Mean patient age, gender, side, experience of the urologist, application of balloon dilatation at beginning of intervention, power supply used for lithotripsy were not predictive factors for the development of complications. Conclusions: Localization of the stone in the upper ureter and stone size larger than 10 mm were detected to increase complication rate whereas application of “smash and go” strategy decreased complication rate in ureteroscopy and stone lithotripsy

Keywords

• Ureteroscopy,complication,impacted stone

References

1. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al. European Urology. Guide- lines on Urolithiasis 2014. Available at http://www.uroweb. org/gls/pdf/22%20Urolithiasis_LR.pdf
2. Ather MH, Nazim SM, Sulaiman MN. Efficacy of semirigid ureteroscopy with pneumatic lithotripsy for ureteral stone surface area of greater than 30 mm². J Endourol 2009; 23: 619-22.
3. Wendt-Nordahl G, Trojan L, Alken P, et al. Ureteroscopy for stone treatment using new 270 degrees semiflexible endoscope: in vitro, ex vivo, and clinical application. J En- dourol 2007;21: 1439-44.
4. Yaycioglu O, Guvel S, Kilinc F, et al. Results with 7.5F ver- sus 10F rigid ureteroscopes in treatment of ureteral calculi. Urology. 2004; 64: 643-646.
5. Schatloff O, Lindner U, Ramon J, et al. Randomized trial of stone fragment active retrieval versus spontaneous passage during holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteral stones. J Urol 2010;183:1031-5.
6. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al. Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 2007;52: 1610-1631.
7. Delvecchio FC, Auge BK, Brizuela RM, et al. Assessment of stricture formation with the ureteral access sheath. Urol- ogy 2003;61: 518-522.
8. Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Nita G, et al. Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a sin- gle-center experience. J Endourol 2006; 20: 179-185.

9. de la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P, et al; CROES URS Study Group. The clinical research office of the endou- rological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endou- rol 2014; 28:131-9.
10. 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.
11. Mandal S, Goel A, Singh MK. Clavien classification of semirigid ureteroscopy complications: a prospective study. Urology 2012; 80: 995-1001.
12. Ibrahim AK. Reporting ureteroscopy complications us- ing the modified clavien classification system. Urol Ann 2015;7:53-7.
13. Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, Kuehhas FE. Posturetero- scopic Lesion Scale: a new management modified organ injury scale, evaluation in 435 ureteroscopic patients. J En- dourol 2012; 26: 1425-30.
14. Moore EE, Cogbill TH, Jurkovich GJ, et al. Organ injury scaling. III: Chest wall, abdominal vascular, ureter, blad- der, and urethra. J Trauma 1992; 33:337–339.
15. Roberts WW, Cadeddu JA, Micali S, et al. Ureteral stricture formation after removal of impacted calculi. J Urol 1998; 159: 723-6.
16. Kumar V, Ahlawat R, Banjeree GK, et al. Percutaneous ure- terolitholapaxy: the best bet to clear large bulk impacted upper ureteral calculi. Arch Esp Urol 1996;49:86-91.
17. Artur H. Brito, Anuar I. Mitre, Miguel Srougi. Uretero- scopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy of Impacted Ureteral Cal- culi. International Braz J Urol 2006; 3: 295-299.
18. Tanriverdi O, Silay MS, Kadihasanoglu M, et al. Revisit- ing the predictive factors for intra-operative complica- tions of rigid ureteroscopy: a 15-year experience. Urol J 2012;9:457-64.
19. Fuganti PE, Pires S, Branco R, et al. Predictive factors for intraoperative complications in semirigid ureteroscopy: analysis of 1235 ballistic ureterolithotripsies. Urology 2008;72:770-4.
20. Leijte JA, Oddens JR, Lock TM. Holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: predictive factors for complications and success. J Endourol 2008;22:257-60.
21. Ozsoy M, Acar O, Sarica K, et al. Impact of gender on suc- cess and complication rates after ureteroscopy World J Urol 2014 Nov 12.
22. Atis G, Arikan O, Gurbuz C, et al. Comparison of differ- ent ureteroscope sizes in treating ureteral calculi in adult patients. Urology 2013;82:1231-5.
23. Atar M, Bodakci MN, Sancaktutar AA, et al. Comparison of pneumatic and laser lithotripsy in the treatment of pedi- atric ureteral stones. J Pediatr Urol 2013;9:308-12.
24. Bapat SS, Pai KV, Purnapatre SS, et al. Comparison of hol- mium laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in managing upper- ureteral stones. J Endourol 2007;21:1425-7.
25. Kassem A, Elfayoumy H, Elsaied W, et al. Laser and pneu- matic lithotripsy in the endoscopic management of large ureteric stones: a comparative study. Urol Int 2012;88:311- 5.