Emergency versus elective ureteroscopy for the management of ureteral stones

Author:

Gadzhiev Nariman K1,Akopyan Gagik N2,Tursunova Farzona I2,Afyouni Andrew S3,Korolev Dmitry O2ORCID,Tsarichenko Dmitry G2,Rapoport Leonid M2,Okhunov Zhamshid3,Bhaskar Somani4,Malkhasyan Vigen A5

Affiliation:

1. Department of Urology, Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia

2. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia

3. Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Southhampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

5. Department of Urology, A.I. Yevdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Moscow, Russia

Abstract

Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of emergency ureteroscopy (URS) compared with elective URS. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent URS for isolated ureteral stones in a single center from October 2001 to February 2014. Our patient cohort was divided into two groups: an emergency URS group (Group A), which consisted of patients who underwent URS within the first 24 h of admission, and an elective or planned URS group (Group B). The URS success rate was defined as being the incidence of successful stone fragmentation and whether there was resolution of renal obstruction. Results: A total of 2957 patients’ medical records were available for analysis. Of these, 704 (21%) comprised of emergency cases and the remaining 2253 (79%) were elective cases. Patients in Group A were younger, had a smaller BMIs, and had smaller stone sizes ( p < 0.001). The URS success rate was found to be 97% in Group A and 96% in Group B ( p = 0.35). Intraoperative or postoperative complication rates were not found to vary significantly between the groups (8% vs 7%, respectively, p = 0.50). The incidence of ureteral stenting was nearly twice as high if URS was performed during night hours (85% vs 45%, p < 0.001). However, ureteral stenting was more prevalent in Group B compared to Group A patients (57% vs 25%, p < 0.001), possibly as a result of the number of pre-stented patients (73%). Conclusions: Emergency URS is an effective and safe option for patients with renal colic. Younger patients without pre-existing obesity and with stone sizes up to 8 mm located in the distal ureter might be a better match for emergency URS.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3