Inert gas elimination from lungs with stratified inhomogeneity: theory.

P. Scheid,M. Hlastala,J. Piiper

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-5687(81)90025-6

1981-06-01

Respiration Physiology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A Comparative Study to Analyze the Efficacy and Safety of Flexible Ureteroscopy Combined with Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Residual Calculi after Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy

Gang Xu,Jiaming Wen,Zhongyi Li,Zhewei Zhang,Xiuqing Gong,Jimin Chen,Chuanjun Du

2015-01-01

Abstract:A certain proportion of patients with initial Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) management require ancillary procedures to increase the stone-free rate. In this study, we aim to analyze the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy combined with holmium laser lithotripsy (F-UL) for treatment of residual calculi after PCNL by comparison with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). Total of 96 patients with residual renal calculi (4 mm to 20 mm) after PCNL was enrolled from May 2010 to March 2013. They were randomly divided into two groups: US Group: patients were treated with F-UL; SWL Group: patients were treated with SWL. Follow-up was made one month and three months after treatment. The mean residual stone size after PCNL was 12.4 ± 4.3 mm in US group compared with 11.9 ± 4.5 in SWL group. The stone-free rate was 84.7% one month after surgical procedure in US group, this rate increased to 91.3% in the third months, while the stone-free rate in SWL group is 64.6% one month after treatment and 72.9% in the third month. For residual stone in lower calyx, the stone-free rate three month after treatment was 90.4% in US group compared to 65.2% in SWL group (P < 0.05). The overall complication rate was low in both groups, no severe complication was found. Both F-UL and SWL are safe and effective methods for residual calculi after PCNL, without severe complications. F-UL provided significantly higher stone-free rate compared with SWL, especially for low-pole calculi.
Ureteroscopy vs laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteric stone: a randomised trial

Fabio C M Torricelli,Victor Srougi,Giovanni S Marchini,Fabio C Vicentini,Carlos A Batagello,Alexandre Danilovic,Marco A Arap,Hiury Andrade,Anuar I Mitre,Ricardo D Jordão,Manoj Monga,William C Nahas,Eduardo Mazzucchi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16494

2024-07-31

Abstract:Objective: To compare the outcomes of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) with retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RLU) for large proximal ureteric stones. Patients and methods: A prospective randomised trial was conducted from January 2018 through December 2022 including patients with impacted proximal ureteric stones of 15-25 mm. Patients underwent fURS or RLU. Primary outcome was the stone-free rate. Demographic data, stone features, and complications rates were also compared between groups. Results: A total of 64 patients were enrolled, 32 in each group. The mean impacted stone time was similar between groups, as well as stone size (17 mm) and stone density (>1000 Hounsfield Units). The ureteric stone-free rates between the two groups (93.7% in fURS vs 96.8% in RLU; odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.72 to 3.17; P = 0.554), and overall success rates, which take into account residual fragments in the kidney (84.3% in fURS vs 93.7% in RLU; OR 1.02, 95% CI -0.69 to 2.74; P = 0.23), were similar. Operative time was also not statistically significantly different between groups (median 80 vs 82 min; P = 0.101). There was no difference in hospital length of stay. Retropulsion rate was higher with fURS (65.6% vs 3.1%; p < 0.001). Residual hydronephrosis (34.3% each group) and complication rates did no differ according to treatment. Conclusion: Flexible URS and RLU are both highly efficient and present low morbidity for large impacted proximal ureteric stone treatment. RLU is not superior to fURS.
Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery with Flexible Ureteroscope for Partial Staghorn Calculi: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Jiaming Wen,Gang Xu,Chuanjun Du,Bohan Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.02.056

2016-01-01

International Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of simultaneous percutaneous nephrolithotomy combined with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in Galdakao-Modified Supine Valdivia position (GMSV) with minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) for partial staghorn calculi. Methods: 67 patients with partial staghorn calculi were randomly divided into two groups. In MPCNL Group, conventional MPCNL was performed in the prone position. In the other group, simultaneous combined MPCNL and flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (Endoscopic Combined Intra-Renal Surgery, ECIRS) serves as single session treatment in the GMSV position (ECIRS Group). Demographic, clinical characteristic, perioperative complications and stone free rate (SFR) were recorded. Results: No significant difference was detected between two groups concerning the age, body mass index, hydronephrosis, stone burden and location. The mean operative time was 105.33 +/- 30.28 min in ECIRS group, which is longer (p = 0.002) than MPCNL group (83.58 +/- 24.37 min). The one-step SFR was significantly higher (p = 0.007) in the ECIRS group compared to MPCNL group (87.88% vs 58.82%). The mean blood loss was 77.21 +/- 41.21 ml for ECIRS group and 86.43 +/- 35.61 ml for MPCNL group (p = 0.330). Overall, complication rate is low in both groups. No statistical difference was found in regards to the clinical complications between the two groups (p = 0.409). After the ancillary treatments, the final SFR was 96.97% in ECIRS group and 91.18% in MPCNL group (p = 0.628). Conclusion: Simultaneous combined MPCNL and flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy is an effective and safe treatment for partial staghorn calculi, with significantly higher one-step SFR when compared to conventional MPCNL monotherapy, without additional procedure-related complications. (C) 2016 IJS Publishing Group Limited. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Comparative study between antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and reterograde intrarenal surgery in the management of impacted upper ureteric stones 1.5 cm or larger

Ahmed Mohey,Ahmed A Abdelfattah,Ahmed E Mohammed,Abdelmoniem Marzouk,Amr S El-Dakhakhny

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04672-w

Abstract:Objective: To prospectively investigate the safety and efficacy of antegrade flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) with the following criteria (supine, ultrasonic guided puncture through lower calyx with 14 fr tract, tubeless) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of large impacted upper ureteric stones ≥ 1.5 cm. Patients and methods: This study recruited 61 patients with single large impacted upper ureteric stone of ≥ 1.5 cm. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups. Group A, included 31 patients who treated by antegrade FURS, all patients were put in supine modified galadako Valdivia position and the renal access is reached by ultrasonic guided puncture through the lower calyx with dilatation upto 14 fr to insert ureteric access sheath and all cases were tubless with JJ stent insertion. Group B, included 30 patients who were treated by RIRS with JJ stent insertion. Stone fragmentation was done by holmium laser in both group. Results: Group A was significantly associated with higher proportion of SFR (90.3%) compared to Group B (70%) (p = 0.046). Group B was significantly associated with shorter operative time and fluoroscopy time in comparison with Group A (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between studied groups regarding bleeding (p = 0.238). Urosepsis showed significantly higher proportion associated with retrograde approach when compared to antegrade approach (p = 0.024). Conclusion: This study showed that antegrade FURS is safe and more effective than RIRS for the management of large impacted upper ureteric stones ≥ 1.5 cm.
Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy Versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Tao Wu,Xi Duan,Shulin Chen,Xuesong Yang,Tielong Tang,Chang Shu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000471773

2017-01-01

Urologia Internationalis

Abstract:Objectives: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing ureterolithotripsy (URS) with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) techniques for the management of large proximal ureteral stones (diameter greater than 10 mm). Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify suitable studies until November 2016. We used weighted mean difference to measure operative time and hospital stay, OR to measure stone free rate (SFR), and complication rate. Subgroup analyses were assessed for heterogeneity. Results: Fourteen publications strictly met our eligibility criteria of which 7 were randomized control studies (RCTs) and 7 non-RCTs. Meta-analysis of extractable data showed that LU and PCNL had higher SFR than URS. URS led to a similar hospital stay like that of LU. However, it had a shorter operative time and lower complication rate than LU. When we compared URS with PCNL, we found a shorter hospital stay in the URS group. However, there was no significant difference in terms of the operative time and complication rate between URS and PCNL. Conclusion: URS should be considered standard therapy for treating large proximal ureteral stones.
A Prospective Comparative Study Between Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Supine Position and Flexible Ureteroscopy in the Management of Single Large Stone in the Proximal Ureter.

Yi Zhang,Cheng-fan Yu,Shi-hua Jin,He Zhu,Yan-qun Na

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.11.034

IF: 2.633

2014-01-01

Urology

Abstract:OBJECTIVE To investigate the difference and relative advantages between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) in the management of surgically indicated single large stone in the proximal ureter. METHODS Patients with single large stone in the proximal ureter with slight to moderate hydronephrosis were prospectively selected and assigned into groups of MPCNL and FURS on the basis of the patient's choice. Demographic data, operative duration, postoperative hospital stay, complication rate, and stone-free rate were recorded and compared. RESULTS From October 2010 to May 2012, 76 such patients were consecutively included into the study. No significant difference was found in preoperative demographics, including age, sex, and severity of hydronephrosis. Stone size was 15.6 +/- 2.5 and 14.9 +/- 2.3 mm (P =.349), operative duration 49.3 +/- 11.7 and 67.2 +/- 17.3 minutes (P <. 001), postoperative hospital stay 4.2 +/- 1.1 and 1.8 +/- 0.8 days (P <. 001), stone-free rate (residual <= 3 mm) 93.7% and 84.1% (P = .198), and complication rate over grade II (modified Clavien system) 12.5% and 6.8% (P = .398) in MPCNL and FURS groups respectively. CONCLUSION Both MPCNL in supine position and FURS are effective and safe surgical options for patients with single large stone in the proximal ureter, when indicated. FURS is associated with faster recovery and less invasiveness than MPCNL in supine position. UROLOGY 83: 999-1002, 2014. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc.
Comparison between Retrograde Flexible Ureteroscopy and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Treatment of Renal Stones of 2-4 cm

Cozma Cosmin,Dragos Adrian Georgescu,Petrisor Geavlete,Razvan-Ionut Popescu,Bogdan Geavlete

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59010124

2023-01-08

Abstract:Background and objectives: Renal stones are widespread, with a lifetime prevalence of 10% in adults. Flexible ureteroscopy enables urologists to treat lower calyx stones or even complex renal stones through the natural orifice and achieve an acceptable stone-free rate. Hence, we analyzed the effectiveness and safety of FURS versus PCNL in treating renal stones between 20 and 40 mm in diameter. Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed 250 consecutive patients with large renal solitary stones (stone burden between 2 and 4 cm) from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (125 patients), in which the patients were treated by a retrograde flexible ureteroscopic approach, and group 2 (125 patients), in which we used percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Stone characteristics and anatomical data were observed based on the computed tomography (CT) and/or KUB (Kidney-ureter-Bladder) radiography imaging archive. Results: The mean stone burden was 26.38 ± 4.453 mm in group 1 and 29.44 ± 4.817 mm in group 2. The stone-free rate after the first ureteroscopy was higher for the PNL(percutaneous nephrolithotomy) group (90.4%) than the F-URS group (68%). After two sessions of ureteroscopy, the SFR was 88.8% in the first group, and after three procedures, the SFR rose to 95.2%. The overall complication rate was higher in group 1 than in group 2 (18.4% vs. 16.8%), but without statistical relevance (p > 0.5). Furthermore, we encountered more grade III and IV complications in the PNL group (8.8% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.05). Conclusion: Flexible ureteroscopy proves to be efficient in treating renal stones over 2 cm. However, the patients must be informed that more than one procedure might be necessary to overcome the entire stone burden.
Comparison Between Retrograde and Antegrade Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy for the Management of Medium-Sized Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Randomized Prospective Study

Ahmed M Abdel-Galeel,Ahmed M Abdel Gawad,Tamer A Abouelgreed,Ahmed Y Aboelsaad,Yasser M Haggag,M Abdelwadood,Basem A Fathi,Mohamed F Elebiary,Rasha Ahmed,Ahmed G Abdel Raouf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.63196

2024-06-26

Cureus

Abstract:Objectives: This study aimed to present the outcomes of retrograde and antegrade ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones ranging in size from 10 to 20 millimeters in diameter. Patients and methods: From March 2023 to December 2023, 70 patients were included in this prospective randomized double-arm interventional study. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (35 patients) had semi-rigid retrograde ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy, and Group 2 (35 patients) had semi-rigid antegrade ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. Results: In terms of length of hospitalization, there was a statistically significant distinction between the groups that were evaluated (p = 0.001). Group (1) showed a statistically significant distinction in Hb and HCT levels before and after the procedure (p < 0.05), whereas Group (2) showed a similar difference in Hb, creatinine, and HCT levels before and after the operation (p < 0.05). The antegrade group had much more hemorrhage than the retrograde group. Reduced hemoglobin (p = 0.008) and hemoglobin saturation (p = 0.029) were most noticeable in the antegrade group. Regarding stone-free rates (SFRs), no statistically significant difference was noted between the groups (p = 0.643). Conclusion: Both retrograde and antegrade ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy are dependable and successful for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. For medium-sized proximal ureteral stones (10-20 mm), retrograde ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy may be the first option due to its shorter hospital stays, decreased bleeding rates, blood transfusion needs, and temporary rise in serum creatinine.
Retrograde, Antegrade, and Laparoscopic Approaches to the Management of Large Upper Ureteral Stones after Shockwave Lithotripsy Failure: A Four-Year Retrospective Study

Hongjian Zhu,Xiongjun Ye,Xuren Xiao,Xianglong Chen,Qingjiang Zhang,Hua Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0391

2014-01-01

Journal of Endourology

Abstract:Purpose: We compare the success rate and complications of retrograde ureteroscopy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of large upper ureteral stones. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 73 patients with large (1cm) upper ureteral stones at two institutions from January 2010 to May 2013. Twenty-two patients underwent retrograde ureteroscopy (group ULS), 30 patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (group PCNL), and 21 patients underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (group LS) for removal of upper ureteral stones. CT, intravenous urography, and ultrasound were performed 1 week and 1 month after surgical removal. Results: There were no significant differences in age, sex, or stone size among the three groups. Mean estimated blood loss and mean hospital stay showed a statistically significant difference among the three groups. Success rates in the PCNL, LS, and ULS groups were 100%, 90.5%, and 77.3%, respectively. The procedures of two patients in group LS were converted to open surgery because of the inability to find the ureteral stone in one patient and an adhesion too difficult to dissect in the other. The procedures of two patients in the ULS group were converted to LS, and those of three patients were converted to PCNL because of severe edema impaction at the site of the stone, a sharply angulated ureter obstruction, upward migration of the stone (seven patients), and intraoperative complications (two patients). Conclusions: Percutaneous antegrade nephrolithotomy is a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for patients with large upper ureteral stones that has several advantages over retrograde ureteroscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Thus, percutaneous antegrade nephrolithotomy is recommended as a safe and good treatment option for large upper ureteral stones. A combined procedure (e.g., ureteral push-back and percutaneous removal) can be considered in some patients.
Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xueliang Chang,Zhan Yang,Xiaowei Wang,Hu Wang,Yaxuan Wang,Zhenwei Han

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2022.119776

2023-01-01

Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques

Abstract:Introduction: Both percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) are effective treatment options for large proximal ureteral stones.Aim: To perform a meta-analysis on this topic to assess the efficacy, safety, and potential complications of the two procedures.Material and methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Ovid and Scopus to identify eligible suitable studies until May 2022. All studies comparing LU vs PCNL in large proximal ureteral stones were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 software was used to analyze statistical significance.Results: A total of nine publications involving 933 patients (LU 465; PCNL 468) were included, of which 4 were randomized control trails (RCTs) and 5 were non-RCTs. The meta-analysis of available data showed that compared with PCNL, LU had a higher initial stone-free rate (OR = 3.26; p = 0.004), but longer operative time (WMD = 35.08 min; p = 0.0003). However, the final stone-free rate (OR = 2.08; p = 0.07) and length of hospital stay (WMD = 0.32 d; p = 0.48) were comparable between the two groups. Meanwhile, LU had a lower transfusion rate (OR = 0.13; p = 0.007) than PCNL. There was no significant difference in terms of complications (OR = 0.97; p = 0.84), Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3 complications (OR = 1.03; p = 0.93), auxiliary procedures (OR = 0.44; p = 0.08), or ureteral stenosis (OR = 0.24; p = 0.13) between LU and PCNL.Conclusions: Our meta-analysis revealed that LU is a safe and feasible option for large proximal ureteral stones with a higher initial stone-free rate and lower transfusion rate compared with PCNL.

surgery
Propensity score matched comparison of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of large impacted proximal ureteral stones with long-term follow-up

Shijun Zhang,Haomin Ren,Xiang Li,Qingzhi Long,Dapeng Wu,Wei Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01609-9

2024-07-29

Urolithiasis

Abstract:Impacted proximal ureteral stones (IPUS) present challenging clinical scenarios due to their persistent nature and associated complications. While ureterorenoscopy (URS) lithotripsy is recommended as the primary treatment, controversies exist regarding the optimal management of such stones. In this retrospective analysis, we compared the operative outcomes and long-term results of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for IPUS larger than 15 mm. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to mitigate potential selection biases. Following PSM, 83 patients in each cohort exhibited comparable baseline characteristics. LU demonstrated a superior surgical success rate (100% vs. 96.4%, p = 0.244) and significantly lower perioperative hemoglobin decline (0.6 ± 0.4 g/dL vs. 1.5 ± 0.7 g/dL, p = 0.036) compared to PCNL. Additionally, LU exhibited a higher stone-free rate after 2 months (100% vs. 91.6%, p = 0.043), but a longer duration of catheterization (7.4 ± 1.2 days vs. 3.5 ± 2.2 days vs., p = 0.011). Conversely, PCNL was associated with a higher incidence of total complications (21.7% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.033) and stone recurrence during a mean period of 40-month follow-up (20.5% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.027). Transperitoneal LU and PCNL represent effective interventions for managing IPUS exceeding 15 mm. Notably, LU emerges as a preferable option over PCNL, offering superior stone clearance rates, reduced perioperative complications, and lower recurrence rates.
Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy versus antegrade flexible ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones 1–2 cm, a prospective randomized multicenter study

Tarek Mohamed Gharib,Ibrahim Abdel-Al,Basheer N. Elmohamady,Hazem Deif,Ahmed Abdelazim Haty,Salah E. Shebl,Omar Safar,Gamal M. Hassan,Yasser M. Haggag,Adel Elatreisy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01626-8

2024-09-20

Urolithiasis

Abstract:To compare the outcomes of using Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy and antegrade flexible ureteroscopy to treat proximal ureteric stones of sizes 1–2 cm. A prospective randomized multicenter study included patients who had proximal ureteric stones 1–2 cm, amenable for ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy between August 2023 and February 2024. Two hundred thirty patients were divided evenly into two treatment groups. Group I included patients treated with antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser stone fragmentation, and Group II included patients treated with retrograde ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy. The study groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, stone access success, operation time, reoperation rates, peri-operative complications, and stone-free status. Group I included 114 patients, while Group II included 111. The mean age of the patients was 33.92 ± 10.37 years, and the size of the stones was 15.88 ± 3 mm. The study groups had comparable demographics and stone characteristics. The mean operative time was significantly longer in group I than in group II (102.55 ± 72.46 min vs. 60.98 ± 14.84 min, respectively, P 0.05). Antegrade flexible ureteroscopy is equivalent to retrograde ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones regarding stone-free status and procedure-related morbidity. However, the antegrade approach has a longer operative time, greater fluoroscopy exposure, and longer hospital stays.

urology & nephrology
The Comparison Study of Flexible Ureteroscopic Suctioning Lithotripsy With Intelligent Pressure Control Versus Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Suctioning Nephrolithotomy in Treating Renal Calculi of 2 to 3 cm in Size

Hua Chen,Xuanxi Qiu,Chuance Du,Donghua Xie,Tairong Liu,Gongxian Wang,Leming Song

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350619849782

2019-05-26

Surgical Innovation

Abstract:Purpose. To compare the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic suctioning lithotripsy (FURS) using patented designed intelligent irrigation and suctioning intraluminal pressure-control platform and integrated pressure-measuring suctioning ureteral access sheath versus minimally invasive suctioning percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in treating renal calculi at 2 to 3 cm in size. Methods. Ninety-one patients who met the criteria were included in the study. Among these, 46 patients underwent transurethral flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy and the other 45 patients underwent MPCNL. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data for the 2 groups and parameters including stone clearance rate, complication rate, average operative time, average postoperative hospitalization duration, and average postoperative hemoglobin level decrease were compared. Results. The hospitalization time for the FURS group was 3.53 ± 1.25 days, which was statistically shorter than that of the MPCNL group, which was 6.54 ± 2.36 days. There was significantly more patients needing pain medication postoperatively in the MPCNL group with statistical difference between the 2 groups ( P = .015). Also, there was more significant hemoglobin level drop in the MPCNL group with statistical difference between the 2 groups. However, there were no statistical differences between the 2 groups on average operative time and stone clearance rate. Conclusion. Both the operative methods are safe and efficacious in treating solitary renal calculus at 2 to 3 cm in size. However, FURS has more advantages including shorter hospital stay, less complication, and less bleeding.

surgery
Comparative Efficacy on Flexible Ureteroscopy Lithotripsy and Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Treatment of Medium-Sized Lower-Pole Renal Calculi.

Lianchao Jin,Bing Yang,Zhe Zhou,Ningchen Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0504

2019-01-01

Journal of Endourology

Abstract:Objective: To demonstrate the safety and efficacy of flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy (FURL) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) through the comparative studies in treating medium-sized lower-pole renal calculi. Methods: Two hundred and twenty eligible patients with lower-pole renal calculi (1-2 cm) were enrolled and further randomly assigned into FURL group and MPCNL group. Patients' demographics, preoperative characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative complications, stone-free rate, and comfort and pain indicated by Bruggrmann Comfort Scale (BCS) and visual analog scale (VAS) were evaluated and recorded. Trauma index such as white blood cells, C-reactive protein (CRP), and interleukin (IL)-6 were also detected. Results: The stone-free rate and the operating time were comparable in FURL and MPCNL groups. Intraoperative and postoperative complication analysis showed that blood loss and hospital stay were significantly lower in the FURL group compared with MPCNL group. No significant difference in minor pelvic perforation, false passage, hemoglobin drop, persistent hematuria, ureteral perforation, moderate fever, urosepsis, and postoperative serum creatinine level was observed. However, as to comfort and pain indicated by BCS and VAS and stress indicated by CRP and IL-6, FURL was superior to MPCNL. Conclusion: FURL could be a better alternative surgical method to MPCNL with similar curative effect and less blood loss and hospital stay.
Comparison of Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy with Ureteroscopic Lasertripsy for Management of Proximal Ureteral Stones

Ghulam Mustafa,Naveed Ahmed Mahar,Harris Hassan Qureshi,Mohsan Mustafa,Muhammad Fayaz,Asad Shahzad Hassan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2024.01.101

2024-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with ureterorenoscopy and lasertripsy for managing upper ureteral stones of size 10mm to 15mm.STUDY DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of Urology, Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT), from December 2020 to December 2021.METHODOLOGY: A total of 168 patients with the diagnosis of proximal ureteric stone of size 1-1.5 cm were enrolled for this study. Patients were divided into two groups by simple random method. Group 1 patients underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) and lasertripsy while Group 2 patients were subjected to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). Patients' demography, operative time, duration of hospitalisation, complication rate and stone-free rates, were recorded for both groups. Frequency and percentages were calculated for categorical variables and mean and standard deviation were calculated for continuous variables. For comparison of continuous variables, one-way ANOVA was applied, and Chi-square test was applied to compare the categorical variables. The p-value ≤0.05 was taken as significant.RESULTS: The mean age was of 39.55 ± 14.06 years, with the majority falling within the age group of 26 to 40 years. There were more males (116, 69%) than females (52, 31%). Most of the patients did not have a history of diabetes or hypertension. Sixty-two patients had previous history of stones. The average duration of ureteric stone disease was 3.18 ± 3.14 months. The mean size of the ureteric stone was 10.82 ± 3.19mm. The procedure duration was significantly shorter for URS, as compared to ESWL (33.81 ± 15.42 minutes vs. 45.00 ± 0.00 minutes, p=<0.01. The overall stone clearance rate was significantly higher after URS (83.3%) as compared to ESWL (64.2%, p=0.05).CONCLUSION: URS was a superior treatment option as compared to ESWL. However, the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be based on a tailored approach considering the patient's preference and the size of the stones.KEY WORDS: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS), Modified clavien classification system (MCCS), Ureteric stone.

medicine, general & internal
Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi

Yi ZHANG,Cheng-fan YU,He ZHU,Shi-hua JIN,Lian-chao JIN,Jun MENG,Yan-qun NA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6702.2013.10.014

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the safety and clinical efficiency between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy(MPCNL)in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy(FURS)in management of proximal ureteral calculi.Methods From Oct.2010 to May.2012,76 patients with single proximal ureteral calculus between 10-20 mm failed in SWL or other conservative therapy accepted MPCNL (32 cases)or FURS(44 cases).There was no significant difference between the groups in base-line parameters.Stone sizes were(15.6±2.5)mm and(14.9±2.3)mm,P＞0.05.Procedural time,post-operative hospitalization stay,complication rates(Clavien degree Ⅱ or over)and stone free rates were compared.Results In these two groups,procedural time was(49.3± 11.7)and(67.2± 17.3)min,P＜0.05,postoperative hospitalization stay were(4.2±1.1)and(1.8±0.8)days,P＜0.05,complication rates were 12.5％ and 6.8％,P＞0.05 and stone free rates(residual fragments≤3 mm)were 93.7％ and 84.1％,P＞0.05.Conclusions For patients with surgically indicated proximal ureteral calculi,both minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy are effective and safe therapeutic modalities.Patients treated with flexible ureteroscopy have faster postoperative recovery.
Retrograde intrarenal surgery or percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteric calculi

Lvwen zhang,Xiang Fei,Yan Song

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-228577/v1

2021-02-26

Abstract:Abstract The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteric calculi. This was a retrospective study on surgical outcomes of 202 patients with impacted proximal ureteric calculi. Overall, 140 and 62 were treated with RIRS and PCNL, respectively. The effects of the choice of the surgical method on the surgical outcomes were evaluated by preoperatively scoring patients with high-risk factors related to stone characteristics and analyzing these scores. Compared to the RIRS group, the surgical duration of the PCNL group was significantly shorter (51.69 ± 25.07 min vs. 67.46 ± 27.12 min, p < 0.05), stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly increased (98.4% vs. 72.10%, p < 0.05), and total treatment cost was lower (US $1678.61 ± 714.86 vs. US $3901.45 ± 1069.46, p < 0.05). Preoperatively, the efficacy of PCNL was higher than that of RIRS based on the higher scores observed. The results indicated PCNL had a better SFR and higher surgical efficacy, whereas RIRS had higher surgical safety parameters, a shorter perioperative period, but a lower initial SFR. PCNL is often more advantageous for complicated impacted proximal ureter stone.
Comparison of stone-free rate between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery

Peng Chen,Tony Tzu-Chun Wei,Eric Yi-Hsiu Huang,Tzu-Ping Lin,Tzu-Hao Huang,Chih-Chieh Lin,I-Shen Huang,William J Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000913

2023-05-01

Abstract:Background: The management of urolithiasis in the kidney has been drastically changed in the era of endourology, mainly consisting of three surgical procedures: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Since ESWL is usually less invasive via ambulatory clinic routes, this study aimed to examine the stone-free rate (SFR) between PCNL and RIRS. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who had renal stones and were treated with either PCNL or RIRS from June 2016 to June 2018. Staghorn stones, stones with diameters <1 cm, and stones with diameters >2 cm were excluded. Patients who underwent multiple surgeries for bilateral renal stones and those with graft kidney stones were excluded from the study. X-ray, sonography, and/or computed tomography (CT) were used to calculate the size of the stones. Follow-up was evaluated by the same image examination within three months after surgery. Stone-free was defined as no residual stone or the presence of asymptomatic calculi <4 mm. The operation time was defined as a skin-to-skin interval. Results: Following exclusion criteria, there were 39 patients in each arm, with no difference in age, sex, or any other demographic data. The average stone size in the PCNL and RIRS groups was 16.3 and 14.0 mm, respectively ( p = 0.009). There was no significant difference in SFR (71.8% vs 61.5%, p = 0.337); the operation time was significant longer ( p < 0.001), and the hospital stay was significantly shorter ( p < 0.001) in the RIRS group. Conclusion: PCNL and RIRS are both feasible options for managing kidney stones. However, the initial stone size might affect the selection of operation. The SFR in the PCNL group was numerically but not statistically higher. The RIRS group, on the other hand, had a longer operation time but a shorter hospital stays.
Comparison of clinical curative effect of ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy and retro-peritoneal laparoscope ureterolithotomy on treatment of upper ureteral calculus

Feng TIAN,Jie DONG,Long-xin WANG,Dian FU,Wen CHENG,Li-xin WANG,Liang HUANG,Kai ZHOU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-271X.2014.04.011

2014-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the clinical effect of ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy and retro -peritoneal laparo-scopic ureterolithotomy on treatment of upper ureteral calculus .Methods The data of 70 cases of hospitalized patients with upper ure-teral calculus between May 2011 and May 2012 were retrospectively studied .They were divided into ureteroscopy ( URS) with holmium laser lithotripsy group (38 cases) and retro-peritoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) group (32 cases).The data of curative rate,operation time,blood loss,postoperation hospitalization time and complications were compared respectively .Results The curative rate (no calculus>4 mm left) of URS group were 86.8% (33/38),while the curative rate of RPLU group were 100.0%.In URS group,the operation time was (85.63 ±14.01) min,the blood loss was (11.18 ±7.11)mL,the postoperation hospitalization time was (3.95 ±1.51) d and the complication was 5 cases.While the data of these index in RPLU group were (79.94 ±18.59) min,(20.94 ±10.96) mL,(4.53 ±1.24) d and 0 case respectively.There were statistically significant difference in curative rate ,complication and blood loss between RPLU group and URS group (P<0.05).There was no statistically significant differences in operation time and postoperation hospitalization time between the two groups (P>0.05).Conclusion Comparing with URS,RPLU has advantage on higher curative rate and lower complications in the treatment of upper ureteral calculus .While the blood lose of URS is less .
Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones: a Comparison Study among Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Retrograde Ureterolithotripsy and Percutaneous Ureterolithotripsy

SUN Xiao-wen,XIA Shu-jie,LU Jun,FAN Jie,WEN Wei,ZHANG Jie,LIU Hai-tao,LI Wei-guo,ZHU Yi-yong,LI Zhong-zhong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-6702.2008.08.014

2008-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), retrograde ureterolithotripsy(URSL) and percutaneous ureterolithotripsy(PCL) in the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi. Methods A total of 397 patients with proximal ureteral calculi treated by ESWL,URSL or PCL ftom September 2001 to December 2005 were retrospectively analyzed. Results Among 397 patients,83 patients with a mean stone size of 1.23 cm were treated by ESW L.Of then.13 patients transferred to URSL or ureterolithotomy and the stone-free rate of ESWL 1 month later was 65.7%(46/70).TWO hundred and thirteen patients with a mean stone size of 1.21 cm were treated by URSL and 101 patients with a mean stone size of 1.50 cm were treated by PCL.The stone-free rate of URSL and PCL 1 month after the treatment was 88.2%(172/195)and 96.9%(95/98),respectively.Eighteen patients in URSL group and 3 patients in PCL group trans-ferred to ureterolithotomy.ESWL had a statistically lower stone-free rate than that of URSL and PCL (P＜0.001),both in patients with stone size≤1 cm and＞1 cm.For patients with stone size＞1 cm,PCL achieved a higher stone-free rate than URSL(P=0.005).PCL also had a higher stone-free rate than URSL in treating patients with stone size≤1 cm but there was no statistical difference between them. Conclusions ESWL can still be used as first-line treatment choice for proximal ureteral stones less than 1cm.For patients with proximal ureteral stones larger than 1cm.URSL and PCL are more proper treatment modalities since they can achieve higher stone-free rate and have acceptable low complications.

Inert gas elimination from lungs with stratified inhomogeneity: theory.

A Comparative Study to Analyze the Efficacy and Safety of Flexible Ureteroscopy Combined with Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Residual Calculi after Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy

Ureteroscopy vs laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteric stone: a randomised trial

Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery with Flexible Ureteroscope for Partial Staghorn Calculi: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Comparative study between antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and reterograde intrarenal surgery in the management of impacted upper ureteric stones 1.5 cm or larger

Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy Versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A Prospective Comparative Study Between Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Supine Position and Flexible Ureteroscopy in the Management of Single Large Stone in the Proximal Ureter.

Comparison between Retrograde Flexible Ureteroscopy and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Treatment of Renal Stones of 2-4 cm

Comparison Between Retrograde and Antegrade Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy for the Management of Medium-Sized Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Randomized Prospective Study

Retrograde, Antegrade, and Laparoscopic Approaches to the Management of Large Upper Ureteral Stones after Shockwave Lithotripsy Failure: A Four-Year Retrospective Study

Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Propensity score matched comparison of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of large impacted proximal ureteral stones with long-term follow-up

Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy versus antegrade flexible ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones 1–2 cm, a prospective randomized multicenter study

The Comparison Study of Flexible Ureteroscopic Suctioning Lithotripsy With Intelligent Pressure Control Versus Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Suctioning Nephrolithotomy in Treating Renal Calculi of 2 to 3 cm in Size

Comparative Efficacy on Flexible Ureteroscopy Lithotripsy and Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Treatment of Medium-Sized Lower-Pole Renal Calculi.

Comparison of Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy with Ureteroscopic Lasertripsy for Management of Proximal Ureteral Stones

Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi

Retrograde intrarenal surgery or percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteric calculi

Comparison of stone-free rate between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery

Comparison of clinical curative effect of ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy and retro-peritoneal laparoscope ureterolithotomy on treatment of upper ureteral calculus

Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones: a Comparison Study among Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Retrograde Ureterolithotripsy and Percutaneous Ureterolithotripsy