DEĞİŞİK LOKALİZASYONLU ÜRETER TAŞLARININ TEDAVİSİNDE HOLMİYUM-YAG LAZER İLE PNÖMOTİK LİTOTRİPSİ TEKNİKLERİNİN BAŞARI VE KOMPLİKASYONLARININ KARŞILAŞTIRMASI

Giriş: Üreter taşı nedeniyle üreterorenoskopik litotipsi uyguladığımız hastaların kullandığımız litotriptör seçimine göre başarısını değerlendirdik. Gereç veYöntem: Kliniğimizde Ocak 2012 ile Aralık 2013 tarihleri arasında farklı lokalizasyonlarda ki üreter taşı nedeni ile kliniğimize başvuran hastalarda, pnömotik litotripsi uyguladığımız 52 ve lazer litotripsi uyguladığımız 61 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Taşların lokalizasyonu üreteropelvik bileşke ile üreter orifisi arasında; üst (iliak üstü) ve alt (iliak altı) taş lokalizasyonları kaydedildi. Ve bu lokalizasyonlarda kullandığımız litotriptörlerin başarısı değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Gruplar arasında cinsiyet, yaş ve taş lokalizasyonu açısından istatistiksel anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır (p>0.05). Operasyonda işlem yapılan taşların, hem taş boyutu bakımından hem de farklı lokalizasyonlardaki taş yükü ortalamaları açısından gruplar arasında istatistiksel bir fark yoktur. Ortalama operasyon süresi pnömotik litotripsi yapılan hastalarda 26,4±9,5, lazer litotripsi yapılan hastalarda 32,5±11,1 dakika idi (p=0.035). Pnömotik litotripsi ve lazer litotripsi uygulanan hastaların komplikasyonlar açısından benzer bulgular elde ettik. Taşsızlık görülme yüzdesi en fazla lazer litotripsi uygulanan gruptadır(p

COMPARISON OF THE SUCCESS AND COMPLICATIONS OF HOLMIUM-YAG LASER AND PNEUMATIC LITOTRIPSY TECHNIQUES IN THE TREATMENT OF DIFFERENT LOCALIZED URETERAL STONES

Introduction: We assessed the success rate of patients with ureterorenoscopic lithotyping due to ureteral stone according to the lithotripter selection used. Material and Methods: Between January 2012 and December 2013, patients who applied to our clinic for the reason of ureteral stone in different localizations were included in the study, 52 patients who underwent pneumatic lithotripsy and 61 patients who underwent laser lithotripsy. The localization of the stones was between the ureteropelvic junction and the ureteral orifice; Upper (upper iliac) and lower (lower iliac) stone localizations were recorded. And the success of the lithotripters we used in these localizations was evaluated. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of sex, age and stone localization (p> 0.05). There is no statistical difference between the groups in terms of both the stone size and the stone load averages in different localizations. Mean operative time was 26.4 ± 9.5 in patients who underwent pneumatic lithotripsy and 32.5 ± 11.1 minutes in patients undergoing laser lithotripsy (p = 0.035). We obtained similar findings in terms of complications of patients who underwent pneumatic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy. The percentage of stone loosening was highest in the group treated with laser lithotripsy (p

___

  • Akıncı M, Esen T, Tellaloğlu S. Urinary stone disease in Turkey: an updated epidemiological study. Eur Urol 1991; 208(3): 200-3.
  • Curhan GC, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ. Regional variation in nephrolithiasis incidence and prevalence among United States men. J Urol 1994; 151(4): 838-41.
  • Iguchi M, Umekawa T, Katoh Y, Kohri K, Kurita T. Prevalence of urolithiasis in Kaizuka City, Japan-an epidemiologic study of urinary stones. Int J Urol 1996; 3(3):175-9.
  • Pak CY. Kidney stones. Lancet 1998; 351(9118):1797-801.
  • Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Niţă G, Mirciulescu V, Cauni V. Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single center experience. J Endourol 2006; 20(3):179-85.
  • Chow GK, Patterson DE, Blute ML, Segura JW. Ureteroscopy: effect of technology and technique on clinical practice. J Urol 2003; 170(1):99-102.
  • Wadhwa SN, Hemal AK, Sharma RK., Intracorporeal lithotripsy with the Swiss lithoclast. Br J Urol 1994; 74(6):699-702.
  • Wignall GR, Canales BK, Denstedt JD, Monga M. Minimally invasive approaches to upper urinary tract urolithiasis. Urol Clin North Am 2008; 35(3):441-54.
  • Wolf JS. Treatment selection and outcomes: ureteral calculi. Urol Clin North Am 2007; 34(3):421-30.
  • Kijvikai K, Haleblian GE, Preminger GM, de la Rosette J. Shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi: an old discussion revisited. J Urol 2007; 178(4):1157-63.
  • Eisner BH, Kurtz MP, Dretler SP. Ureteroscopy for the management of stone disease. Nat Rev Urol 2010;(7):40-5.
  • Leone NT, Garcia-Roig M, Bagley DH. Cost-effectiveness v. patient preference in the choice of treatment for distal ureteral calculi: A literature based decision analysis. J Endourol 1995;9(3):243-8.
  • Leone NT, Garcia-Roig M, Bagley DH. Changing Trends in the Use of Ureteroscopic Instruments from 1996 to 2008. J Endourol 2010; 24(3): 361-5.
  • Francesca F, Scattoni V, Nava L, Pompa P, Grasso M, Rigatti P. Failures and complications of transurethral ureteroscopy in 297 cases: conventional rigid instruments vs. small caliber semirigid ureteroscopes. Eur Urol 1995; 28(2):112-5.
  • Türk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Straub M, Traxer O et al. EAU Guidelines on urolithiasis 2010: 44-70.
  • Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck C, Gallucci M et al. 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 2007;178(6): 2418-34.
  • Krambeck AE, Murat FJ, Gettman MT, Chow GK, Patterson DE, Segura JW. The evolution of ureteroscopy: a modern single institution series. Mayo Clin Proc 2006; 81(4):468-73.
  • Eisner BH, Reese A., Sheth S, Stoller ML. Ureteral stone location at emergency room presentation with colic. J Urol 2009; 182:165-8.
  • Jeromin L, Sosnowski M. Ureteroscopy in the treat-ment of ureteral stones: over 10 years' experience. Eur Urol 1998; 34(4): 344-9.
  • Scarpa RM, De Lisa A, Porru D, Usai E. Holmium-YAG laser ureterolithotripsy. Eur Urol 1999; 35(3): 233-8.