Comparison of Different Ureteroscope Sizes in Treating Ureteral Calculi in Adult Patients

dc.authorid0000-0002-3386-971X
dc.contributor.authorAtış, Gökhan
dc.contributor.authorArıkan, Özgür
dc.contributor.authorGürbüz, Cenk
dc.contributor.authorYıldırım, Asıf
dc.contributor.authorErol, Bulent
dc.contributor.authorPelit, Sabri
dc.contributor.authorUlus, Ismail
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-10T19:43:50Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentİstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE To compare the success and complication rates of a 4.5-6.5F semirigid ureteroscope (S-URS) with an 8.5-11.5F S-URS in treating ureteral stones in adult patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifty-two patients with ureteral stones, who were treated with 4.5-6.5F S-URS (group 1) and 52 patients who were treated with 8.5-11.5F S-URS (group 2) were compared retrospectively using a matched-pair analysis. The size, lateralization, location, and impaction of the stones and also the patient age, gender, body mass index, and the presence of hydronephrosis were used as the matching parameters. The stones were fragmented with Holmium-YAG laser. RESULTS The matching parameters were comparable between the 2 groups. The stone-free rates were 88.5% in group 1 and 84.6% in group 2 (P = .566) after a single procedure. The mean operative times for groups 1 and 2 were 32.7 +/- 5.8 and 30.2 +/- 5.4 minutes, respectively (P = .06). Postoperative hematuria was detected in 1.9% and 13.5% of patients in groups 1 and 2 (P = .027). Ureteral balloon dilation was needed in 1.9% and 15.4% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = .015). Mucosal injury was observed in 1.9% and 13.5% of the patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = .027). No major complications were noted in either group. CONCLUSION Although the stone-free rates and operative times were similar between the 2 groups, a 4.5-6.5F ureteroscope can reduce the need for ureteral balloon dilation and some minor complications, such as mucosal injury and postoperative hematuria, in adult patients. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.021
dc.identifier.endpage1235
dc.identifier.issn0090-4295
dc.identifier.issn1527-9995
dc.identifier.issue6
dc.identifier.pmid24035032
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84888638154
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage1231
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.021
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14730/10748
dc.identifier.volume82
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000327540300014
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier Science Inc
dc.relation.ispartofUrology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250302
dc.subjectUrinary-Tract Calculi
dc.subjectPredictive Factors
dc.subjectSemirigid Ureteroscopy
dc.subjectLaser Lithotripsy
dc.subjectComplications
dc.subjectManagement
dc.subjectClassification
dc.subjectExperience
dc.subjectEfficacy
dc.titleComparison of Different Ureteroscope Sizes in Treating Ureteral Calculi in Adult Patients
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket

Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Yükleniyor...
Küçük Resim
İsim:
10748.pdf
Boyut:
99.66 KB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format