z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Pneumatic Lithotripsy Versus Laser Lithotripsy for Ureteral Stones
Author(s) -
Amir Reza Abedi,
Mohammadreza Razzaghi,
Farzad Allameh,
Fereshteh Aliakbari,
Morteza Fallah Karkan,
Arash Ranjbar
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of lasers in medical sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.443
H-Index - 21
eISSN - 2228-6721
pISSN - 2008-9783
DOI - 10.15171/jlms.2018.42
Subject(s) - medicine , laser lithotripsy , lithotripsy , ureteroscopy , surgery , urology , ureter
Several different modalities are available for ureteral stone fragmentation. From them pneumatic and holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho: YAG) lithotripsy have supportive outcomes. In this study we studied 250 subjects who had ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) or laser lithotripsy (LL). Methods: Two-hundred fifty patients with ureteral stones underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy (115 subjects in the PL group, 135 subjects in the LL group) from August 2010 to April 2016. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate stone-free rate (SFR), mean operation time (MOT), mean hospital stay (MHS), stone migration and complications. Results: Two groups were similar in age, gender, mean size of stones, side of stone, and complications. There was a statistical difference in terms of SFR, stone migration and MHS in favor of the LL group ( P ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.05 respectively), and MOT in favor of the PL group ( P ≤ 0.05). Conclusion: Both the PL and LL techniques were effective and safe for ureteral stones, however a slightly higher SFR was found in the LL group.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom