Logo-aim
Arch Iran Med. 2016;19(11): 0-0.
PMID: 27845548
Scopus ID: 84995808543
  Abstract View: 741
  PDF Download: 757

Original Article

Safety and Efficacy of Pneumatic Lithotripters Versus Holmium Laser on Multiple Ureteral Calculi

Hakan Ercil * , Ergun Alma, Okan Bas, Umut Unal, Nevzat Can Sener, Ediz Vuruskan, Aykut Buğra Senturk, Zafer Gokhan Gurbuz

Abstract

 BACKGROUND: Different energy sources can be used for ureteroscopic stone fragmentation, such as pneumatic, ultrasonic, laser or electrohydraulic. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of pneumatic lithotripters versus Ho: YAG laser in the treatment of multiple stones in the distal ureter. 

METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was done using the data of patients to whom ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) was applied for ureter stones in our clinic. From these patients, those with multiple unilateral distal ureter stones were identified, then these patients were separated into 2 groups according to the type of lithotriptor used in stone fragmentation as laser lithotripsy (Group 1) and pneumatic lithotripsy (Group 2).
RESULTS: Statistically, the two groups were similar in respect of the number of stones, stone burden and the number of double J stents applied intra-operatively. The mean operating time was similar in the 2 groups as 53.47 (±17.3) minutes in Group 1 and 50.59 (±15.3) minutes in Group 2. On postoperative day 1 after the URL, the stone free rate (SFR) of Group 1 (78.7%) was found to be significantly high compared to the SFR of Group 2 (63.6%), while at postoperative month 1, the SFR of both groups was found to be similar. Binary logistic regression was applied to determine the effect of related independent variables on the 1st month SFR. In this model, age and stone burden were affecting variables.
CONCLUSION: Compared to the pneumatic lithotripter, the Ho: YAG laser seems to have advantages of a higher SFR in the early postoperative period, eventhough there are statistically similar success rates and complication rates.
First Name
 
Last Name
 
Email Address
 
Comments
 
Security code


Abstract View: 741

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 757

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

ePublished: 01 Nov 2016
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)