Distal üreter taslarının tedavisinde; üreterorenoskopik litotripsi (ÜRS) ve vücut dısı sok dalga litotripsinin (ESWL) etkinliklerini karsılastırması amaçlandı. Tek distal üreter ta?ı olan hastaların dosyaları geriye dö- nük incelendi. Hastalar uygulanan tedavi seçeneklerine göre ESWL ve ÜRS gruplarına ayrıldı. Gruplar; tedavi ba?arısı ve komplikasyon oranları açısından kar?ıla?tırıldı. BULGULAR: ESWL ve ÜRS gruplarında sırasıyla 112 ve 108 hasta yer aldı. Ya?, ta? boyutu ve cinsiyet deği?kenleri gruplar arasında farklılık göstermedi. Ortalama ta? boyutu 10,8 mm'di. Operasyon sonrası ta?sız hasta oranı, ÜRS grubunda %89,8 ve ESWL grubunda %59,8'di. Gruplar arası fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı (p
To compare the efŞ ciency of ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of distal ureteral stones.METHODS: The data of all patients with a single distal ureter stone were investigated, retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the management options as ESWL and URS. The success and complication rates of the groups were compared.RESULTS: There were 112 and 108 patients in ESWL and URS groups, respectively. Patients' age, stone size and gender were similar in both groups. The average stone size was 10.8 mm. Postoperative success rate deŞ ned as the removal of all the stones was higher in URS group (89.8%) than ESWL group (59.8%), and the difference was signiŞ cant (p<0.05).In URS group, ureteral perforation, urinary tract infection, and postoperative fever were encountered in 3.24%, 6.4% and 9.2% of the patients, respectively. Urinary tract infection and fever were noted in 4.4% and 7.9% of patients in ESWL group. However, the complication rates did not differ signiŞ cantly between groups. The procedure had to be repeated 2.8 times in ESWL group and none of the patients in ESWL needed a double-J stent. In contrary, 28 patients in the URS group required the insertion of a double-J stent.CONCLUSION: Although ESWL is a non-invasive and reliable outpatient procedure that can be used in the treatment of distal ureteral stones, URS seems more successful. However, the invasiveness of URS is its disadvantage
Hollingsworth JM, Rogers MA, Kaufman SR, et al. Review Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta- analysis. Lancet 2006;368:1171-9.
Kumar S, Kurdia KC, Ganesamoni R, et al. Randomized controlled trial to compare the safety and effi cacy of naft opidil and tamsulosin as medical expulsivetherapy in combination with prednisolone for distal ureteral stones. Korean J Urol 2013;54:311-5.
Kara C, Bayindir M, Bozkurt OF, et al. Giant ureteral stone: case report. Th e New Journal of Urology 2008;4:45-8.
Kim HW, Kim KD, Moon YT, et al. A giant ureteral stone. Journal of Korean Medical Science 1995;10:48-50.
Rauf A, Rauf H. Giant ureteric stone: case report. Nishtar Medical Journal 2010;2:64-6.
Resorlu B, Kara C, Resorlu EB, et al. Eff ectiveness of ultrasonography in the postoperative follow-up of pediatric patients undergoing ureteroscopic stone manipulation. Ped Surg Intern 2011;27:1337-41.
Jeong YB, Park JK, Kim HJ, et al. Giant ureteral stone in a patient with a single functioning kidney: a case report. Clin Nephrol 2011;75:547-9.
Pearle MS, Nadler R, Bercowsky E, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol 2001;166:1255-60.
Honeck P, Häcker A, Alken P, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: A prospective study. Urol Res 2006;34:190-2.
Turk TM, Jenkins AD. A comparison of ureteroscopy to in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for thetreatment of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol 1999;161:45-6.
Göğüş Ç, Bedük Y, Baltacı S, ark. Üreter alt uç taşlarının tedavisinde ESWL ve üreteroskopinin karşılaştırılması. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası 2003;56:3-18.
Anderson KR, Keettch DW, Albala DM, et al. Optimal therapy for the distal ureteral stone: ESWL versus ureteroscopy. J. Urol 1994;152:62-5.