The comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stones

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridSener, Nevzat Can/0000-0003-3974-187X
dc.authoridGOKTUG, Hasan Nedim Goksel/0000-0001-9762-0641
dc.authoridIMAMOGLU, MUHAMMET ABDURRAHIM/0000-0003-3848-7312
dc.contributor.authorOzturk, M. D. Ufuk
dc.contributor.authorSener, Nevzat Can
dc.contributor.authorGoktug, H. N. Goksel
dc.contributor.authorGucuk, Adnan
dc.contributor.authorNalbant, Ismail
dc.contributor.authorImamoglu, M. Abdurrahim
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-25T20:01:41Z
dc.date.available2024-09-25T20:01:41Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentAbant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: In this study we compare the success rates and complication rates of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), laparoscopic, and ureteroscopic approaches for large (between 1 and 2 cm) proximal ureteral stones. Methods: In total, 151 patients with ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm in diameter were randomized into 3 groups (52 SWL, 51 laparoscopy and 48 retrograde intrarenal surgery [RIRS]). The groups were compared for stone size, success rates, and complication rates using the modified Clavien grading system. Results: Stone burden of the groups were similar (p = 0.36). The success rates were 96%, 81% and 79%, respectively in the laparoscopy, SWL, and ureteroscopy groups. The success rate in laparoscopy group was significantly higher (p < 0.05). When these groups were compared for complication rates, RIRS seemed to be the group with the lowest complication rates (4.11%) (p < 0.05). SWL and laparoscopy seem to have similar rates of complication (7.06% and 7.86%, respectively, p = 0.12). Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the results of laparoscopy, SWL and RIRS in ureteral stones. Our results showed that in management of patients with upper ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm, laparoscopy is the most successful method based on its stone-free rates and acceptable complication rates. However, the limitations of our study are lack of hospital stay and cost-effectiveness data. Also, studies conducted on larger populations should support our findings. When a less invasive method is the only choice, SWL and flexible ureterorenoscopy methods have similar success rates. RIRS, however, has a lower complication rate than the other approaches.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5489/cuaj.346
dc.identifier.endpageE676en_US
dc.identifier.issn1911-6470
dc.identifier.issn1920-1214
dc.identifier.issue11-12en_US
dc.identifier.pmid24282455en_US
dc.identifier.startpageE673en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.346
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12491/14263
dc.identifier.volume7en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000341697600003en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherCanadian Urological Associationen_US
dc.relation.ispartofCuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.snmzYK_20240925en_US
dc.titleThe comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stonesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu