Hüseyin Aydemir, Osman Köse, Salih Budak, Deniz Gül

Üst Üreter Taşlarının Tedavisinde Semirijid Üreterorenoskopik Litotripsi ve Vücut Dışı Șok Dalga Litotripsi Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması ve Başarı Üzerine Etkili Faktörler

Amaç Üst üreter taşlarının tedavisinde beden dışı şok dalga (ESWL) ve semirijid üreterorenoskopi (URS) uygulamalarının etkinliğini ve başarı üzerine etkili olabilecek faktörlerideğerlendirmek.Gereç veYöntemlerÜst üreter taşı tanısı ile tedavi edilen 233 hastanın verileri retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. ESWL uygulanan hastalar Grup 1, semirijid URS yapılan hastalar ise Grup2 olarak ayrıldı. Tüm hastalar kontrastsız abdominal bilgisayarlı tomografi ile değerlendirildi. Hastaların yaş ve cinsiyetleri, vücut kitle indeksi, taş boyutu, ortalama taşdansitesi, cilt-taş mesafesi gibi faktörler kayıt edilerek tedavi başarısı üzerine etkileri değerlendirildi.Bulgular Hastaların yaş ortalaması 47,40 yıl idi. Ortalama taş boyutu 119,70 mm3 idi ve ortalama taş dansitesi 690,50 Hounsfield Ünitesi idi. Grup 1’de %55,20 taşsızlık tespitedildi. Grup 2’de ise bu oran %74,07 idi. Kadın cinsiyet, taş boyutu ve cilt taş mesafesi ESWL başarısı için prediktif faktörlerdi. Semirijid URS için herhangi bir prediktiffaktör tespit edilmedi. Taş cilt mesafesi 10 cm’den uzun olanların kısa olanlara göre başarısız olma riski 13 kat daha fazlaydı (p

Comparison of Semirigid Ureterorenoscopic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy In The Management of Upper Ureteral Stones and Factors Affecting Treatment Success

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave (ESWL) and semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) in the treatment of upper ureteral stones and the factors that may affect the success. Materials and Methods The data of 233 patient streated with the diagnosis of upper ureteral Stones were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were into divided two groups according to ESWL (Group 1) and semi-rigid URS (Group 2) treatment. All patients were evaluated by non-contrast abdominal computed tomography. The factors such as age and sex, body mass index, stone size, mean stone density, skin-stone distance were recorded and their effects on treatment success were evaluated. Results The meanage of the patients was 47.40 years and the mean body mass index was 25.90 kg/m2. The mean stone size was 119.70mm3 and the mean stone density was 690.50 Hounsfield Units. 76.40% of the patients had hydronephrosis. Stone-free status was detected in 55.20% patients in the group 1, while it is 74.07% in the group 2. Female gender, stone size and skin distance were predictive factors for ESWL success. No predictive factor was detected forsemi-rigid URS. The risk of failure was 13 times higher than those with shorter stone skin lengths greater than 10 cm (p

PDF

___

1. Aboumarzouk OM, Kata SG, Keeley FX, McClinton S, Nabi G. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi. Cochrane Data base Syst Rev 2012;(5):CD006029.
2. Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC. Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976-1994. Kidney Int 2003;63:1817-23.
3. Lopes Neto AC, Korkes F, Silva JL, Amarante RD, Mattos MH, Tobias-Machado M, et al. Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy. J Urol 2012;187:164-8.
4. Turk C, Skolarikos A, Neisius A, Petřík A, Seitz C, Th omas K. EAU Guidelines on Urolithi asis 2019 Available at https:// uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis.
5. Wu T, Duan X, Chen S, Yang X, Tang T, Cui S. Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy versus Laparosco pic Ureterolithotomy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Large Proxi mal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Urol Int 2017;99:308-19.
6. Tugcu V, Resorlu B, Sahin S, Atar A, Kocakaya R, Eksi M. Flexible Ureteroscopy versus ret roperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones >15 mm: A Single Surgeon Experience. Urol Int 2016;96:77-82
7. Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Jha SK, Singh H. A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy and Semirigid Ureteroscopy for Upper Ureteral Stones >2 cm: A Single-Center Experience. J Endourol. 2015;29:1248-52.
8. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, et al. Surgical Ma nagement of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I. J Urol 2016;196:1153-60.
9. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, et al. Surgical Ma nagement of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART II. J Urol 2016;196:1161-9.
10. Drake T, Grivas N, Dabestani S, Knoll T, Lam T, Maclennan S, et al. What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review. Eur Urol 2017;72:772-86.
11. Karlsen SR, Renkel J, Tahir AR, Angelsen A, Diep LM. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithot ripsy versus ureteroscopy for 5- to 10-mm stones in the proximal ureter: Prospective eff ecti veness patient-preference trial. J Endourol 2007;21:28-33.
12. Muslumanoglu AY, Binbay M, Yuruk E, Akman T, Tepeler A, Esen T, et al. Updated epi demiologic study of urolithiasis in Turkey. I: Changing characteristics of urolithiasis. Urol Res 2011;39:309-14.
13. Perez Castro E, Osther PJ, Jinga V, Razvi H, Stravodimos KG, Parikh K, et al. CROES Ure teroscopy Global Study Group. Diff erences in ureteroscopic stone treatment and outcomes for distal, mid-, proximal, or multiple ureteral locations: the Clinical Research Off ice of the Endourological Society ureteroscopy global study. Eur Urol 2014;66:102-9.
14. Takahara K, Ibuki N, Inamoto T, Nomi H, Ubai T, Azuma H. Predictors of success for stone fragmentation and stone-free rate aft er extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones. Urol J 2012;9(3):549-52.
15. Hong YK, Park DS. Ureteroscopic lithotripsy using Swiss Lithoclast for treatment of ureteral calculi: 12-years experience. J Korean Med Sci 2009;24:690-4.
16. Galal EM, Anwar AZ, El-Bab TK, Abdelhamid AM. Retrospective comparative study of rigid and fl exible ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones. Int Braz J Urol 2016;42:967-72.
17. Sofer M, Watterson JD, Wollin TA, Nott L, Razvi H, Denstedt JD. Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi in 598 patients. J Urol 2002 Jan;167:31-4.
18. Al-Ansari A, As-Sadiq K, Al-Said S, Younis N, Jaleel OA, Shokeir AA. Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol 2006;38:63-7.
19. Ng CF, Siu DY, Wong A, Goggins W, Chan ES, Wong KT. Development of a scoring sys tem from noncontrast computerized tomography measurements to improve the selection of upper ureteral stone for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2009;181:1151–7.
20. Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ, Pace KT. Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi. Urol Res 2010;38:307–13.
21. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Fracchia JA. Hounsfield units on computerized tomography pre dict stone-free rates aft er extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2003;169:79
22. Abdelhamid M, Mosharafa AA, Ibrahim H, Selim HM, Hamed M, Elghoneimy MN et al. A Prospective Evaluation of High-Resolution CT Parameters in Predicting Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Success for Upper Urinary Tract Calculi. J Endourol 2016;30:1227- 32.
23. Kilinc MF, Doluoglu OG, Karakan T, Dalkilic A, Sonmez NC, Aydogmus Y et al. Ureteros copy in proximal ureteral stones aft er shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and eff icient or dangerous? Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9:718-22.