Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridKilinc, Muhammet Fatih/0000-0002-2515-7106
dc.authoridaydogmus, yasin/0000-0003-4037-6611
dc.contributor.authorKilinc, Muhammet Fatih
dc.contributor.authorDoluoglu, Omer Gokhan
dc.contributor.authorKarakan, Tolga
dc.contributor.authorDalkilic, Ayhan
dc.contributor.authorSonmez, Nurettin Cem
dc.contributor.authorAydogmus, Yasin
dc.contributor.authorResorlu, Berkan
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-27T20:57:46Z
dc.date.available2025-01-27T20:57:46Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.departmentÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: 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 < 0.05). Conclusions: Complementary URS may be used safely after SWL failure in proximal ureteral stones. Its success rate and morbidities are similar to primary URS, except for longer operation time and an increased need for balloon dilatation.
dc.identifier.doi10.5489/cuaj.2745
dc.identifier.endpageE722
dc.identifier.issn1911-6470
dc.identifier.issn1920-1214
dc.identifier.issue9-10
dc.identifier.pmid26664506
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84944191051
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3
dc.identifier.startpageE718
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2745
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12428/26489
dc.identifier.volume9
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000367669200005
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherCanadian Urological Association
dc.relation.ispartofCuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal
dc.relation.publicationcategoryinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20250125
dc.subjectSemirigid Ureteroscopy
dc.subjectComplications
dc.subjectCalculi
dc.subjectUreterorenoscopy
dc.subjectClassification
dc.subjectManagement
dc.subjectSurgery
dc.subjectTherapy
dc.subjectEswl
dc.titleUreteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous?
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu