Preoperatif ve İntraoperatif Klinik Bulguların Üreter Taşı Endoskopik Tedavi
Başarısına Etkisi
Amaç: Üreter taşı nedeniyle üreterorenoskopi (URS) yapılan hastaların klinik verileri ile taşsızlık oranları arasındaki ilişkiyi retrospektif olarak araştırmayı amaçladık. Yöntemler: Çalışmamız kliniğimizde üreter taşı tanısıyla URS yapılan 83 hastanın verilerinin retrospektif analizinden oluşturuldu. Preoperatif ve intraoperatif klinik veriler kaydedildi. Operasyondan 2 hafta sonrasında 4 milimetreden büyük fragmanın saptanmaması başarı olarak kabul edildi. Klinik veriler ile taşsızlık oranı arasındaki ilişki uygun istatistik yöntemlerle değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Ortalama yaş 50.48±14,41 ve erkek/kadın oranı 2 olarak bulundu. Toplam taşsızlık oranı %83,2 idi. Komplikasyon olarak 7 hastada postoperatif ateş, 2 hastada üreteral perforasyon gelişti. Yaş, cinsiyet, taraf, taş sayısı, çapı, hacmi, en geniş yüzey alanı, ortalama Hounsfield ünitesi, üreteral balon dilatasyon kullanımı, litotriptör cinsi (pnömotik, pnömotik + lazer, lazer) açısından başarılı ve başarısız hastalar arasında anlamlı farklılık saptanmazken, preoperatif hidronefroz derecesi (düşük dereceli: %95,2 vs yüksek dereceli: %69,4, p=0,006), taş lokasyonu (distal üreter: %92,9 vs proksimal üreter: %72,5, p=0,014) ve operasyon süresi (başarılı: 60,0 (45,0-60,0) dak. vs başarısız: 85,0 (60,0-97,5) dak. p=0,048) açısından taşsızlık oranında farklılık olduğu bulundu. Ayrıca antiretropulsif Stone cone kullanımında başarı %91,7, kullanılmayanlarda %81,4 olarak saptandı (p=0,347). Sonuç: Başarı oranını artırmak ve ek prosedür gereksinimini azaltmak için özellikle hidronefrotik proksimal üreter taşlarında antiretropulsif aletlerin veya fleksible URS kullanımının tercih edilmesi gerektiğini düşünüyoruz.
The Effect of Preoperative and Intraoperative Clinical Findings on Success of Endoscopic Management of Ureteral Stone
Objective: We investigated the relationship between clinical data of patients who underwent ureterorenoscopy (URS) due to ureteral stone and stone free rates retrospectively. Methods: Clinical data of 83 patients who underwent URS in our clinic were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperative and intraoperative clinical parameters were recorded. Success was defined as not to detect > 4mm stone fragments 2 weeks after the operation. Appropriate statistical analysis were done for evaluating relationship between stone free rate and clinical data. Results: Mean age was 50.48±14.41 and male to female ratio was 2. Overall stone free rate was 83.2%. Postoperative fever, ureteral perforation were detected in 7 and 2 patients, respectively. There were no differences between success and failure groups in terms of age, sex, operation side, stone number, diameter, size, surface area, mean Hounsfield unit, usage of balloon dilatation. However with respect to preoperative grade of hydronephrosis (low grade: 95.2% vs high grade: 69.4%, p=0.006), stone location (distal ureter: 92.9% vs proximal ureter: 72.5%, p=0.014) and operation time (success: 60.0 (45.0-60.0) min. vs failure: 85.0 (60.0-97.5) min. p=0.048) we found statistically significant differences between the study groups. In addition stone free rate was 91.7% with anti-retropulsion device Stone cone, whereas it was 81.4% without any ureteral occlusion (p=0.347). Conclusion: We assume that anti-retropulsion devices or flexible URS should be prefered especially in patients with hydronephrotic proximal ureteral stone for higher stone free rate with lower auxiliary procedure.
___
- 1. J Fasihuddin Q, Hasan AT. Ureteroscopy (URS): an effective
interventional and diagnostic modality. Pak Med Assoc
2002;52:510-512.
- 2. Watson GM, Landers B, Nauth Misir R, et al. Development
in ureteroscopes, techniques and accessories associated
with laser lithotripsy. World J Urol1993;11:19.
- 3. Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, et al. Comparison between extracorporeal
shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope
with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for treating
large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol 2004;172:1899-1902.
- 4. Hamano S, Nomura H, Kinsui H, et al. Experience with ureteral
stone management in 1,082 patients using semirigid
ureteroscopes. Urol Int 2000;65:106-111.
- 5. 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.
- 6. Delvecchio FC, Preminger GM. Management of residual
stones. Urol Clin N Am 2000;27:347-354.
- 7. Sun L, Peng FL. Simultaneous saline irrigation during retrograde
rigid ureteroscopic lasertripsy for the prevention of
proximal calculus migration.Can Urol Assoc J 2013;7:E65-
68.
- 8. Yuksel OH, Akan S, Urkmez A, et al. Efficacy and safety
of semirigid ureteroscopy combined with holmium: YAG
laser in the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi: Is it a
good alternative treatment option of flexible ureteroscopy
for developing countries? J Pak Med Assoc 2015;65:1193-
1196.
- 9. Cabrera FJ, Preminger GM, Lipkin ME. Antiretropulsion devices.
Curr Opin Urol 2014;24:173-178.
- 10. Ahmed M, Pedro RN, Kieley S, et al. Systematic evaluation
of ureteral occlusion devices: insertion, deployment, stone
migration, and extraction. Urology 2009;73:976–980.
- 11. Farahat YA, Elbahnasy AE, Elashry OM. A randomized prospective
controlled study for assessment of different ureteral
occlusion devices in prevention ofstone migration during
pneumatic lithotripsy. Urology 2011;77:30–35.
- 12. Dretler SP. Ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi: prevention
of stone migration. J Endourol 2000;14:565–567.
- 13. Ursiny M, Eisner BH. Cost-effectiveness of antiretropulsion
devices for ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Urol
2013;189:1762–1766.
- 14. Georgescu D, Mulţescu R, Geavlete B, Geavlete P. Intraoperative
complications after 8150 semirigid ureteroscopies
for ureteral lithiasis: risk analysis and management.
Chirurgia (Bucur) 2014 May-Jun;109:369-374.
- 15. Librenjak D, Šitum M, Gugić D, et al. Ureterorenoscopic
treatment of ureteral stones--influence of operator’s experience
and skill on the procedure outcome. Croat Med J
2011;52:55-60.
- 16. Moufid K, Abbaka N, Touiti D, et al. Large impacted upper
ureteral calculi: A comparative study between retrograde
ureterolithotripsy and percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy
in the modified lateral position. Urol Ann
2013;5:140-146.
- 17. Elsheemy MS, Maher A, Mursi K, et al. Holmium:YAG laser
ureteroscopic lithotripsy for ureteric calculi in children:
predictive factors for complications and success.World J
Urol 2014;32:985-990.
- 18. Süer E, Gülpinar Ö, Özcan C, et al. Predictive factors for
flexible ureterorenoscopy requirement after rigid ureterorenoscopy
in cases with renal pelvic stones sized 1 to 2 cm.
Korean J Urol 2015;56:138-142.
- 19. Rifaioğlu MM, Demirbas O, Davarcı M. The importance
of hydronephrosis in percutaneous nephrolithotomy operation.
Dicle Med J 2013;40:441-445.