Üst üriner sistem taşlarında taş büyüklüğüne göre fleksibl üreterorenoskopinin etkinliği

Year 2016, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 22 - 29, 01.08.2016

Özer Baran Aykut Aykaç Mehmet Melih Sunay Fatih Yalçınkaya Memduh Nurettin Sertçelik Ali Atan

Abstract

renal cerrahi RIRS uygulanan 280 olgunun sonuçları taş boyutlarına göre retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Gereç ve Yöntem: Eylül 2014 ve Şubat 2016 tarihleri arasında üst üriner sistem taş hastalığı olan 280 hastada fleksibl üreterorenoskopi ile taş kırma işlemi yapıldı. Görüş altında taş veya taşlar 3 mm’den küçük hale gelinceye kadar kırıldı. Üç mm’den büyük taşlar klinik anlamlı rezidü parçalar olarak kabul edildi. Bulgular: Fleksibl üreterorenoskopi ile taş tedavisi 197 erkek, 83 kadın toplam 280 hastaya uygulandı. Hastaların yaş ortalaması 45.8 yıl ve ortalama taş boyutu 16,9 mm 7 - 40 mm idi. Ortalama işlem süresi 47.6 dk 30 - 90 dk idi. İkizyüz oniki hastaya %75.7 işlem sonrası double J stent takılırken, işlem süresinin çok kısa sürdüğü, rezidüel taşı kalmayan ve üreter hasarı gelişmeyen 68 hastaya %24.2 double J stent takılmadı. Üreteral kılıf 256 hastada ilk seansta yerleştirildi, 17 hastada ise 3 haftalık double j stent sonrası yerleştirilebildi. 229 %81.7 hastada tek seansta tüm taşlar kırılmış iken 51 %18.2 hastada rezidü taşlar nedeniyle ikincil işlem gerekti. Fleksibl üreterorenoskopi esnasında ciddi kanama meydana gelmedi. Bir hastada üreteral hasar gelişmesi ve double J stent takılamaması nedeniyle açık cerrahiye dönüldü. Sonuç: Üst üriner sistem taş hastalığında fleksibl URS yüksek taşsızlık ve düşük morbidite oranları ile güvenilir ve etkin bir cerrahi yöntemdir.

Keywords

ürolithiasis , retrograd intrarenal cerrahi , fleksible ureterorenoskopi

Efficacy of flexible ureterorenoscopy in the upper urinary tract stones according to stone size

Abstract

Aim: The results of retrograde intrarenal surgery in 280 cases according to stone size were retrospectively evaluated. Material and Methods: Between September 2014 and February 2016, flexible ureterorenoscopy was performed in 280 cases with upper urinary tract stone disease. Stone or stones were fragmented until smaller than 3 mm under vision. Larger than 3 mm stones were accepted as the clinical significance residual stones. Results: Stone treatment with flexible ureterorenoscopy was performed in 197 male and 83 female patients. Median age was 45.8 years and median stone size was 16.9 mm 7- 40mm . Median operation time was 47.6 min 30-90 min . Double J stent was placed in 212 patient 75.7% after the operation while 68 patients 24.2% who has a very short operation time, without residual stone and ureteral damage was not placed. Ureteral access sheath was inserted at first procedure in 256 patient, 17 patient was inserted after the 3 week double J stent period. 229 81.7% patient stones were fragmented at first procedure but 51 18.2% patient had seconder procedure for residual stones. Severe bleeding did not occur during flexible ureterorenoscopy. In one patient developed ureteral injury inserting double J stent was unsuccesfully and was converted to open surgery. Conclusion: Flexible ureterorenoscopy is effective and reliable surgical procedure with high stone free rates and low morbidity in upper urinary system stone treatment.

Keywords

urolithiasis , retrograde intrarenal surgery , flexible ureterorenoscopy

References

• Soucie JM, Thun MJ, Coates RJ, McClellan W, Austin H. Demographic and geographic variability of kidney stones in the United States Kidney Int 1994;46:893-9.
• Pearle MS, Calhoun EA, Curhan GC.Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis.J Urol 2005;173:848-57.
• Akıncı M, Esen T, Tellaloğlu S: Urinary stone disease in Tur- key: An updated Epidemiological Study. Eur Urol 1991;20: 200-203.
• Hiatt RA, Dales LG, Friedman GD, Hunkeler EM. Frequ- ency of urolithiasis in a prepaid medical care program. Am J Epidemiol 1982;115:255-65.
• Uribarri J, Oh MS, Carroll HJ. The first kidney stone.Ann Intern Med 1989 ;111:1006-9.
• Satava RM. Identification and reduction of surgical error using simulation. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2005; 14: 257-61.
• Keoghane S, Walmsley B, Hodgson D. The natural history of untreated renal tract calculi. BJU Int 2010;105:1627-9.
• Straub M, Strohmaier WL, Berg W, Beck B,Hoppe B, La- ube N, et al. Diagnosis and metaphylaxis of stone disease Consensus concept of the National Working Committee on Stone Disease for the Upcoming German Urolithiasis Gui- deline. World J Urol 2005;23:309-23.
• Huffman JL, Bagley DH, Lyon ES. Extending cystoscopic techniques into the ureter and renal pelvis. Experience with ureteroscopy and pyeloscopy. JAMA 1983;250:2002-5.
• Ho CC, Hee TG, Hong GE, Singam P, Bahadzor B, Md Zai- nuddin Z. Outcomes and Safety of Retrograde Intra-Renal Surgery for Renal Stones Less Than 2 cm in Size. Nephrou- rol Mon 2012;4: 454–7.
• Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Lam JS, Schulam PG. Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intra- renal stones 2 cm or greater--is this the new frontier? J Urol 2008;179:981–4.
• Akman T, Binbay M, Ugurlu M, Kaba M, Akcay M, Yazici O, et al. Outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery compared with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients with moderate-size kidney stones: a matched-pair analysis. J En- dourol 2012;26:625-9.
• Hyams ES, Monga M, Pearle MS, Antonelli JA, Semins MJ, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE, Pais VM Jr, Preminger GM, Lipkin ME, Eisner BH, Shah O, Sur RL, Mufarrij PW, Matlaga BR. A prospective, multi-institutional study of flexible for proximal ureteral Stones smaller than 2 cm. J Urol 2015;193:165-9.
• Karadag MA, Demir A, Cecen K, Bagcioglu M, Kocaaslan R, Altunrende F. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus semi- rigid ureteroscopy for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones: a retrospective comparative analysis of 124 patients. Urol J 2014 ;11:1867-72.
• Wong MYC. Flexible ureteroscopy is the ideal choice to manage a 1.5 cm diameter lower pole Stone. J Endourol 2008;22:1845-6.
• Palmero JL, Castelló A, Miralles J, Nuño de La Rosa I, Ga- rau C, Pastor JC. Results of retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones greater than 2cm.Actas Urol Esp 2014;38:257-62.
• Grasso M, Ficazzola M. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 1999;162:1904-8.
• Elbir F, Başıbüyük I, Topaktaş R, Kardaş S, Tosun M, Tepe- ler A, et al. Fleksibl üreterorenoskopi sonuçları: 279 vaka. Turk J Urol 2015;41:113-8.
• Breda A, Angerri O.Retrograde intrarenal surgery for kid- ney stones larger than 2.5 cm. Curr Opin Urol 2014;24:179- 83.
• Riley JM, Stearman L, Troxel S.Retrograde ureteroscopy for renal stones larger than 2.5 cm. J Endourol 2009 ;23:1395-8.
• Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLen- nan S, Lam TB,et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrog- rade intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones..Eur Urol 2015;67:612-6.
• Jung GH, Jung JH, Ahn TS, Lee JS, Cho SY, Jeong CW, et al. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery versus a sing- le-session percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole stones with a diameter of 15 to 30 mm: A propensity score- matching study. Korean J Urol 2015;56:525-32.
• Resorlu B, Oguz U, Resorlu EB, Oztuna D, Unsal A. The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on the success of retrogra- de intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal sto- nes.. Urolog. 2012;79:61-6.
• Tolga-Gulpinar M, Resorlu B, Atis G, Tepeler A, Ozyuvali E, Oztuna D, et al. Safety and efficacy of retrograde intrare- nal surgery in patients of different age groups. Actas Urol Esp 2015;39:354-9.
• Thomsen HS .Pyelorenal backflow. Clinical and experimen- tal investigations. Radiologic, nuclear, medical and pathoa- natomic studies. Dan Med Bull 1984;31:438-57.
• Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J, Lee DI, Felfela T, Conra- die MC et al. Characterization of intrapelvic pressure du- ring ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral Access sheats. Urology 2003;61:713-8.
• Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classifica- tion of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral Access sheat during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol 2013;189:580-4.
• Delvecchio FC, Auge BK, Brizuela RM, Weizer AZ, Silvers- tein AD, Lallas CD,et al. Assessment of stricture formation with the ureteral access sheath. Urology 2003;61:518-22.
• Giusti G, Proietti S, Luciani LG, Peschechera R, Giannan- toni A, Taverna G, et al. Is retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of renal stones with diameters exceeding 2 cm still a hazard? Can J Urol 2014;21:7207-12.
• Oguz U, Resorlu B, Ozyuvali E, Bozkurt OF, Senocak C, Un- sal A.Categorizing intraoperative complications of retrogra- de intrarenal surgery. Urol Int 2014;92:164-8.
• Bach C, Nesar S, Kumar P, Goyal A, Kachrilas S, Papat- soris A, et all. The new digital flexible ureteroscopes: ‘size does matter’--increased ureteric access sheath use Urol Int 2012;89:408-11.