Flexible Ureteroscopy Can Be More Efficacious in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones in Select Patients
Purpose. We aimed to compare and evaluate the outcomes and complications of two endoscopic treatment procedures, semirigid ureteroscopy (SR-URS) and flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS), in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones (PUS). Methods. SR-URS (group 1) was done on 68 patients whereas 64 patient...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Hindawi Limited
2015-01-01
|
| Series: | Advances in Urology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/416031 |
| Summary: | Purpose. We aimed to compare and evaluate the outcomes and complications of two endoscopic treatment procedures, semirigid ureteroscopy (SR-URS) and flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS), in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones (PUS). Methods. SR-URS (group 1) was done on 68 patients whereas 64 patients underwent F-URS (group 2) for the treatment of PUS. Success rate was defined as the absence of stone fragments or presence of asymptomatic insignificant residual fragments < 2 mm. Outcomes and complications were recorded. Results. The differences were statistically not significant in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and stone characteristics between groups. Mean ureteral stone size was 9.1 ± 0.4 mm and 8.9 ± 0.5 mm for groups 1 and 2. Mean operative time was 34.1 ± 1.5 min and 49.4 ± 2.3 min for groups 1 and 2 (p=0.001). SFRs were 76.5% and 87.5% for groups 1 and 2 (p=0.078). Two major complications (ureteral avulsion and ureteral rupture) occurred in group 1. Conclusion. F-URS is safer and less invasive than SR-URS in patients with PUS. There is no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of either technique. Nonetheless we recommend F-URS in the management of PUS as a first-line treatment option in select cases of proximal ureteral calculi. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1687-6369 1687-6377 |