English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Purpose  Assessment of safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscope with lithoclast for treatment of large proximal ureteral stones.    Materials and methods  The study included 147 patients with large upper ureteral stones. SWL and ureteroscopy were performed in 71 and 76 patients respectively. Patients in the SWL group were treated with Siemens: - Modularis lithovario under intravenous sedation on an out patient basis. Patients in the ureteroscopy group were treated with (7.5 Fr) semi-rigid ureteroscope and lithoclast under spinal anesthesia on a day care basis.    Results  Stone - free rate for in situ SWL was 58% (41 of 71) patients. For semi-rigid ureteroscope accessibility of the stones was 94% (72 of 76) and the stone free rate was 92% (70 of 76) No major complications were encountered in both groups.  Mean stone size was 1.34 ± 0.03 cm in the SWL group and 1.51 ± 0.04 in the ureteroscopy group.    Conclusions  Our study demonstrates that ureteroscopy with lithoclast can be considered as acceptable treatment modality for large proximal ureteral calculi and can be considered as fist line for treatment of large proximal ureteral stones.

Treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscope with lithoclast