Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Ureteral Stones (ureteral + stone)
Selected AbstractsImprovement of stone comminution by slow delivery rate of shock waves in extracorporeal lithotripsyINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Issue 12 2006YUJI KATO Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of delivery rate of shockwaves (SW) on stone comminution and treatment outcomes in patients with renal and ureteral stones. Methods: Patients with radio-opaque stones in the upper urinary tract that were treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) were divided into two groups according to delivery rate (120 or 60 SW/min). The effective fragmentation after one ESWL session and treatment success at 3 months after ESWL was compared between the two groups. Results: Of 134 patients (84 men and 50 women), 68 patients were treated at a fast rate and 66 were treated at a slow rate. Thirty and 38 patients in the fast rate group and 28 and 38 in the slow rate group had renal and ureteral stones, respectively. After one ESWL session, effective fragmentation was noted more often in the slow group (65.2%) than the fast group (47.1%) (P = 0.035), particularly for smaller stones (stone area <100 mm2) (P = 0.005) and renal stones (p = 0.005). However, there was no significant difference in treatment success at 3 months after ESWL between the two groups. In univariate logistic regression analysis, slow SW rate and smaller stones were significant factors for effective fragmentation after one ESWL session. In multivariate analysis, slow SW rate and smaller stones were also independent factors. Conclusions: Slow SW rate contributed to better stone comminution than fast rate, particularly for small stones and renal stones. ESWL treatment at a slow SW rate is recommended to obtain efficient stone fragmentation. [source] Impact of anatomical pielocaliceal topography in the treatment of renal lower calyces stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsyINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Issue 6 2005LORENZO RUGGERA Abstract Aim:, There is wide consensus that the lowest success rate of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is in the complete clearance of renal stones located in the lower calyces. We assess the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy for lower pole renal calculi to determine the relationship between the spatial anatomy of lower pole and the outcome of ESWL. Methods:, We evaluated 107 patients who were treated for solitary lower pole renal stones less than 20 mm in diameter with ESWL. The spatial anatomy of the lower pole, as defined by the lower infundibulopelvic angle, infundibular length and infundibular width, was measured by preoperative intravenous pyelography, while the stone location and size were determined by using abdominal plain X-ray. All patients were followed up at 1 and 3 months with abdominal plain X-ray and ultrasonography. Results:, Only 62 patients (58%) became stone free, while 45 (42%) retained residual fragments. A small lower infundibulopelvic angle, a long infundibular length and a tight infundibular width are unfavorable for stone clearance after ESWL. Conclusions:, ESWL is the treatment of choice for most renal and ureteral stones. However, stone clearance from the lower pole following ESWL is poor and significantly affected by the inferior pole collecting system anatomy. Therefore, we believe it is important to evaluate these anatomical factors when deciding on the best treatment for lower pole renal calculi. [source] Primary ureteroscopic treatment for obstructive ureteral stone-causing fornix ruptureINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Issue 12 2004PANAGIOTIS KALAFATIS Abstract, Background:, Management of fornix rupture (FR) by obstructive stone is comprised of extravasation control and the elimination of the obstruction. For all patients, management initially remains conservative under close follow up. Endoscopic management of FR involved with an obstructive stone of the ureter or the pelvi-ureteric junction (UPJ) consists mainly of stenting the ureter. Our endoscopic approach to this pathological entity comprises of the sole stenting of the ureter, as well as primary ureteroscopic lithotripsy followed by ureter stenting. Patients and methods:, In the Department of Urology at the General Hospital of Rhodos Island, Rhodos, Greece, over the last 15 years, 51 of 86 patients with FR due to an obstructive stone, were treated endoscopically. Twenty-two patients underwent sole stenting of the ureter (option A) and 29 patients underwent primary ureteroscopic lithotripsy and stenting (option B). Results:, The overall primary ,successful outcome' was achieved in nine of the 22 patients (40.9%) in the group treated with sole stenting, while the remaining 59.1% required secondary interventions. However, 27 of the 29 patients (93.1%) treated with primary ureteroscopic lithotripsy and stenting required no auxiliary treatment. The primary successful outcome results for obstructive middle and lower ureteral stones with FR were eight out of 12 (66.6%) and 26 out of 27 (96.3%) for therapeutic options A and B, respectively. Upper obstructive ureteral stones with FR required secondary intervention in most cases, regardless of the therapeutic option chosen. (In nine out of 10 and one out of two cases for options A and B, respectively). The mean duration of hospitalization for options A and B were 7.6 and 5.3 days, respectively. The mean duration that the ureter stent remained in situ for A and B treatment options was 30.9 and 10.2 days, respectively. Conclusions:, Sole stenting of the ureter is reserved for infected FR or for stones of the upper ureter or the UPJ. Ureteroscopic lithotripsy followed by double-J stenting of the ureter may offer a quick and safe therapeutic alternative for distal and middle obstructive ureteral stones with FR. [source] What is the optimal treatment for lower ureteral stones larger than 1cm?INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Issue 5 2000Bora KÜpeli Abstract Purpose: To compare the treatment options for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm. Methods: The records of 449 patients with lower ureteral calculi larger than 1 cm were reviewed retrospectively. Of these patients 342 (76.1%) were treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (group 1), 66 (14.7%) with pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) (group 2) and 128 (28.5%) with ureterolithotomy (group 3). Eighty-seven (19.5%) patients underwent any of the two treatment modalities because of unsuccessful primary treatment. Results: The overall stone-free rates were 32.4, 90.9 and 95.3% for ESWL, PL and ureterolithotomy, respectively. These values were 84.4% for primary PL and 96.7% for primary ureterolithotomy. The re-treatment rate (46.4%) and secondary procedures were much more frequent in the ESWL group. There was no difference in the complication rates of the three groups. Conclusions: Pneumatic lithotripsy with ureteroscopy seems to be an appropriate treatment for larger ureteral stones. While ESWL can be tried as a first treatment option because of its non-invasive nature, lower success and higher re-treatment rates limit its usefulness. Ureterolithotomy is still a reasonable alternative for these large or unfragmented stones. [source] Hospitalized Nephrolithiasis after Renal Transplantation in the United StatesAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 4 2003Kevin C. Abbott The national incidence of and risk factors for hospitalized nephrolithiasis (NEP) in renal transplant (RT) recipients has not been reported. We conducted a historical cohort study of 42 096 RT recipients in the United States Renal Data System between 1 July 1994 and 30 June 1998. The 1-year incidence of NEP (ICD-9 codes 592.x) after RT in 1997 was compared to the rate of NEP in the general population using the National Hospital Discharge Survey. Associations with time to hospitalizations for a primary diagnosis of nephrolithiasis were assessed by Cox Regression. NEP was uncommon after RT (104 cases per 100 000 person years in 1997). However, females, but not males, had a statistically significant increased risk of NEP compared to the general population (rate ratio for females, 2.84, 95% confidence interval, 2.35,3.58). Kidney stones were more common than ureteral stones, and percutaneous procedures were more common than ureteroscopy or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). The only risk factor identified for NEP was renal failure due to stone disease (only one case). NEP was uncommon after RT, but was still more common than in the general population. We identified differences in the presentation and management of NEP after RT in comparison to the general population. [source] | ||||||||||