A prospective trial on ureteral stenting combined with secondary ureteroscopy after an initial failed procedure.

Urological Research Pub Date : 2012-10-01 Epub Date: 2012-04-12 DOI:10.1007/s00240-012-0476-0
Changwei Ji, Weidong Gan, Hongqian Guo, Huibo Lian, Shiwei Zhang, Rong Yang, Xiaozhi Zhao
{"title":"A prospective trial on ureteral stenting combined with secondary ureteroscopy after an initial failed procedure.","authors":"Changwei Ji,&nbsp;Weidong Gan,&nbsp;Hongqian Guo,&nbsp;Huibo Lian,&nbsp;Shiwei Zhang,&nbsp;Rong Yang,&nbsp;Xiaozhi Zhao","doi":"10.1007/s00240-012-0476-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of the intentional ureteral stenting on the success rate of calculus extraction by second ureteroscopy, when the initial ureteroscopy failed. We prospectively enrolled 512 patients with ureteral calculi who underwent ureteroscopies from April 2005 to May 2011. The patients with failed initial ureteroscopies were classified into two groups depending on the stent type: the Double-J stent and the ureteral catheter group. The secondary ureteroscopies were performed in a short period (3-22 days). Data were abstracted on stone size, location, patient demographics, outcome and complications. A total of 453 patients had success after the initial ureteroscopy and the success rate was 88.5%. Of the 59 failed patients, 40 were managed by reureteroscopy with Double-J stent placement and 19 with ureteral catheters. There were no statistically significant differences between patients in Double-J stent and ureteral catheter group in the aspects of age, primary stone size, gender, stone location and stone-free rate [39/40 (97.5%) versus 19/19 (100%), p > 0.05]. Moreover, the mean stents retaining period before the second ureteroscopy was significantly shorter in the ureteral catheter group, when compared with the Double-J stent group (3.9 versus 16.9 days, p < 0.01). The complications were moderate and not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05). Indwelling a ureteral stent leads to a high subsequent success rate for second ureteroscopy following an initial failed procedure. In addition to Double-J stent, the ureteral catheter stent was an effective alternative with shorter retaining period, especially for impacted stones.</p>","PeriodicalId":23412,"journal":{"name":"Urological Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00240-012-0476-0","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-012-0476-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/4/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of the intentional ureteral stenting on the success rate of calculus extraction by second ureteroscopy, when the initial ureteroscopy failed. We prospectively enrolled 512 patients with ureteral calculi who underwent ureteroscopies from April 2005 to May 2011. The patients with failed initial ureteroscopies were classified into two groups depending on the stent type: the Double-J stent and the ureteral catheter group. The secondary ureteroscopies were performed in a short period (3-22 days). Data were abstracted on stone size, location, patient demographics, outcome and complications. A total of 453 patients had success after the initial ureteroscopy and the success rate was 88.5%. Of the 59 failed patients, 40 were managed by reureteroscopy with Double-J stent placement and 19 with ureteral catheters. There were no statistically significant differences between patients in Double-J stent and ureteral catheter group in the aspects of age, primary stone size, gender, stone location and stone-free rate [39/40 (97.5%) versus 19/19 (100%), p > 0.05]. Moreover, the mean stents retaining period before the second ureteroscopy was significantly shorter in the ureteral catheter group, when compared with the Double-J stent group (3.9 versus 16.9 days, p < 0.01). The complications were moderate and not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05). Indwelling a ureteral stent leads to a high subsequent success rate for second ureteroscopy following an initial failed procedure. In addition to Double-J stent, the ureteral catheter stent was an effective alternative with shorter retaining period, especially for impacted stones.

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
输尿管支架置入联合输尿管镜检查的前瞻性试验。
本研究的目的是探讨在第一次输尿管镜检查失败的情况下,有意输尿管支架置入对第二次输尿管镜结石取出成功率的影响。从2005年4月至2011年5月,我们前瞻性地招募了512例输尿管结石患者,这些患者接受了输尿管镜检查。首次输尿管镜检查失败的患者根据支架类型分为双j支架组和输尿管导管组。二期输尿管镜手术时间短(3 ~ 22天)。数据包括结石大小、位置、患者人口统计学、结局和并发症。首次输尿管镜检查成功453例,成功率为88.5%。在59例失败的患者中,40例采用输尿管镜植入双j型支架,19例采用输尿管导尿管。双j支架组与输尿管导管组患者在年龄、原发结石大小、性别、结石位置、结石清除率方面差异无统计学意义[39/40 (97.5%)vs 19/19 (100%), p > 0.05]。此外,输尿管导管组在第二次输尿管镜检查前的平均支架保留时间明显短于双j支架组(3.9天比16.9天,p < 0.01)。两组并发症发生率均为中等,差异无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。输尿管支架留置可提高初次输尿管镜检查失败后第二次输尿管镜检查的成功率。除双j型支架外,输尿管导管支架是一种有效的选择,保留时间更短,特别是对阻生结石。
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
Urological Research
Urological Research 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊最新文献
A simple and rapid colorimetric method for determination of phytate in urine. Hyperoxaluric rats do not exhibit alterations in renal expression patterns of Slc26a1 (SAT1) mRNA or protein. Studies on the in vitro and in vivo antiurolithic activity of Holarrhena antidysenterica. Ureteroscopy-assisted retrograde nephrostomy (UARN) for an incomplete double ureter. Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients.
×
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