Original research
Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous? Muhammet Fatih Kilinc, MD;* Omer Gokhan Doluoglu, MD;* Tolga Karakan, MD;* Ayhan Dalkilic, MD;¥ Nurettin Cem Sonmez, MD;¥ Yasin Aydogmus, MD;§ Berkan Resorlu, MD+ Department of Urology, Ankara Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; ¥Department of Urology, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey; §Department of Urology, Etimesgut Military Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; +Department of Urology, 18 Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey
*
Cite as: Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9(9-10):E718-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2745 Published online October 13, 2015.
Abstract Introduction: We assessed the effectiveness of ureteroscopy (URS) in proximal ureteral stones performed after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) failure, and determined outcomes in terms of success rate, complications, and operation time. Methods: We analyzed data of patients with previous unsuccessful SWL (Group I) and the ones that did not have SWL or URS before (Group II) for proximal ureteral stones between December 2007 and August 2014. Group I included 346 patients who underwent complementary URS and Group II 209 patients who underwent primary URS. Success rates, operation time and complications were compared between groups. Results: Success rates of complementary and primary URS were 78.9% and 80.9%, respectively. The difference in success rates was not statistically significant between groups (p = 0.57). The complication rates of complementary URS was 12.1%, and 9.5% in primary URS (p = 0.49). No statistically significant differences were noted in terms of gender, age, stone size and side, or lithotripter type between groups. The mean operation time and need for balloon dilatation were higher in complementary URS group compared to the primary URS group, and the difference was statistically significant (p
Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous? Muhammet Fatih Kilinc, MD;* Omer Gokhan Doluoglu, MD;* Tolga Karakan, MD;* Ayhan Dalkilic, MD;¥ Nurettin Cem Sonmez, MD;¥ Yasin Aydogmus, MD;§ Berkan Resorlu, MD+ Department of Urology, Ankara Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; ¥Department of Urology, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey; §Department of Urology, Etimesgut Military Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; +Department of Urology, 18 Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey
*
Cite as: Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9(9-10):E718-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2745 Published online October 13, 2015.
Abstract Introduction: We assessed the effectiveness of ureteroscopy (URS) in proximal ureteral stones performed after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) failure, and determined outcomes in terms of success rate, complications, and operation time. Methods: We analyzed data of patients with previous unsuccessful SWL (Group I) and the ones that did not have SWL or URS before (Group II) for proximal ureteral stones between December 2007 and August 2014. Group I included 346 patients who underwent complementary URS and Group II 209 patients who underwent primary URS. Success rates, operation time and complications were compared between groups. Results: Success rates of complementary and primary URS were 78.9% and 80.9%, respectively. The difference in success rates was not statistically significant between groups (p = 0.57). The complication rates of complementary URS was 12.1%, and 9.5% in primary URS (p = 0.49). No statistically significant differences were noted in terms of gender, age, stone size and side, or lithotripter type between groups. The mean operation time and need for balloon dilatation were higher in complementary URS group compared to the primary URS group, and the difference was statistically significant (p
