Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy versus antegrade flexible ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones 1–2 cm, a prospective randomized multicenter study

IF 2 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urolithiasis Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1007/s00240-024-01626-8
Tarek Mohamed Gharib, Ibrahim Abdel-Al, Basheer N. Elmohamady, Hazem Deif, Ahmed Abdelazim Haty, Salah E. Shebl, Omar Safar, Gamal M. Hassan, Yasser M. Haggag, Adel Elatreisy
{"title":"Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy versus antegrade flexible ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones 1–2 cm, a prospective randomized multicenter study","authors":"Tarek Mohamed Gharib, Ibrahim Abdel-Al, Basheer N. Elmohamady, Hazem Deif, Ahmed Abdelazim Haty, Salah E. Shebl, Omar Safar, Gamal M. Hassan, Yasser M. Haggag, Adel Elatreisy","doi":"10.1007/s00240-024-01626-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>To compare the outcomes of using Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy and antegrade flexible ureteroscopy to treat proximal ureteric stones of sizes 1–2 cm. A prospective randomized multicenter study included patients who had proximal ureteric stones 1–2 cm, amenable for ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy between August 2023 and February 2024. Two hundred thirty patients were divided evenly into two treatment groups. Group I included patients treated with antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser stone fragmentation, and Group II included patients treated with retrograde ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy. The study groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, stone access success, operation time, reoperation rates, peri-operative complications, and stone-free status. Group I included 114 patients, while Group II included 111. The mean age of the patients was 33.92 ± 10.37 years, and the size of the stones was 15.88 ± 3 mm. The study groups had comparable demographics and stone characteristics. The mean operative time was significantly longer in group I than in group II (102.55 ± 72.46 min vs. 60.98 ± 14.84 min, respectively, P &lt; 0.001). Most reported complications were MCCS grades I and II, with no significant difference between the study groups. The stone-free rate after four weeks was 92.1% and 81.1% for groups I and II, respectively, which increased to 94.7% and 85.6% after eight weeks (P &gt; 0.05). Antegrade flexible ureteroscopy is equivalent to retrograde ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones regarding stone-free status and procedure-related morbidity. However, the antegrade approach has a longer operative time, greater fluoroscopy exposure, and longer hospital stays.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01626-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To compare the outcomes of using Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy and antegrade flexible ureteroscopy to treat proximal ureteric stones of sizes 1–2 cm. A prospective randomized multicenter study included patients who had proximal ureteric stones 1–2 cm, amenable for ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy between August 2023 and February 2024. Two hundred thirty patients were divided evenly into two treatment groups. Group I included patients treated with antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser stone fragmentation, and Group II included patients treated with retrograde ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy. The study groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, stone access success, operation time, reoperation rates, peri-operative complications, and stone-free status. Group I included 114 patients, while Group II included 111. The mean age of the patients was 33.92 ± 10.37 years, and the size of the stones was 15.88 ± 3 mm. The study groups had comparable demographics and stone characteristics. The mean operative time was significantly longer in group I than in group II (102.55 ± 72.46 min vs. 60.98 ± 14.84 min, respectively, P < 0.001). Most reported complications were MCCS grades I and II, with no significant difference between the study groups. The stone-free rate after four weeks was 92.1% and 81.1% for groups I and II, respectively, which increased to 94.7% and 85.6% after eight weeks (P > 0.05). Antegrade flexible ureteroscopy is equivalent to retrograde ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones regarding stone-free status and procedure-related morbidity. However, the antegrade approach has a longer operative time, greater fluoroscopy exposure, and longer hospital stays.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超薄半刚性逆行输尿管镜与前向柔性输尿管镜在治疗 1-2 厘米输尿管近端结石中的对比,一项前瞻性随机多中心研究
比较使用超薄半硬性逆行输尿管镜检查和前向柔性输尿管镜检查治疗1-2厘米大小的输尿管近端结石的效果。这项前瞻性随机多中心研究纳入了 2023 年 8 月至 2024 年 2 月间患有输尿管近端结石(1-2 厘米)、可接受输尿管镜检查和激光碎石的患者。2300 名患者被平均分为两个治疗组。I 组包括接受前行柔性输尿管镜检查和钬激光碎石治疗的患者,II 组包括接受逆行超细半硬性输尿管镜检查的患者。研究组在患者人口统计学、取石成功率、手术时间、再次手术率、围手术期并发症和无结石状态等方面进行了比较。第一组包括 114 名患者,第二组包括 111 名患者。患者的平均年龄为(33.92±10.37)岁,结石大小为(15.88±3)毫米。研究组的人口统计学和结石特征相当。第一组的平均手术时间明显长于第二组(分别为 102.55 ± 72.46 分钟对 60.98 ± 14.84 分钟,P < 0.001)。大多数报告的并发症为 MCCS I 级和 II 级,研究组之间无明显差异。I组和II组四周后的无结石率分别为92.1%和81.1%,八周后分别增至94.7%和85.6%(P > 0.05)。就无结石状态和手术相关发病率而言,前向柔性输尿管镜检查与逆行超细半硬性输尿管镜检查治疗近端输尿管结石的效果相当。不过,前向方法的手术时间更长、透视暴露更大、住院时间更长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Urolithiasis
Urolithiasis UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Official Journal of the International Urolithiasis Society The journal aims to publish original articles in the fields of clinical and experimental investigation only within the sphere of urolithiasis and its related areas of research. The journal covers all aspects of urolithiasis research including the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetics, clinical biochemistry, open and non-invasive surgical intervention, nephrological investigation, chemistry and prophylaxis of the disorder. The Editor welcomes contributions on topics of interest to urologists, nephrologists, radiologists, clinical biochemists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, basic scientists and nurses working in that field. Contributions may be submitted as full-length articles or as rapid communications in the form of Letters to the Editor. Articles should be original and should contain important new findings from carefully conducted studies designed to produce statistically significant data. Please note that we no longer publish articles classified as Case Reports. Editorials and review articles may be published by invitation from the Editorial Board. All submissions are peer-reviewed. Through an electronic system for the submission and review of manuscripts, the Editor and Associate Editors aim to make publication accessible as quickly as possible to a large number of readers throughout the world.
期刊最新文献
Identifying therapeutic targets for kidney stone disease through proteome-wide Mendelian randomization and colocalization analysis. Potential impacts to human health from climate change: A comparative life-cycle assessment of single-use versus reusable devices flexible ureteroscopes. Association between the systemic inflammation response index and kidney stones in US adults: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2007-2018. Comprehensive analysis and validation of TP73 as a biomarker for calcium oxalate nephrolithiasis using machine learning and in vivo and in vitro experiments. Quadruple-D score in the success rate of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones in pediatric population.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1