Open AccessPercutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: overview own experience use
Author(s) -
С. В. Попов,
R. G. Guseynov,
N. K. Gadjiev,
А В Давыдов,
V M Obidnyak,
R. S. Barhitdinov,
V. V. Perepelitsa
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
vestnik urologii
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2308-6424
DOI - 10.21886/2308-6424-2021-9-2-92-99
Subject(s) - medicine , extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy , percutaneous , ureteroscopy , surgery , lithotripsy , renal pelvis , percutaneous nephrolithotomy , statistical significance , gross hematuria , ultrasound , ureter , urology , radiology
. Currently, a large number of techniques are used in the treatment of patients with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL), retrograde ureterolithotripsy (RULT), laparoscopic and retro-peritoneoscopic ureterolithotomy. Purpose of the study . To evaluate the possibilities and effectiveness of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy in the treatment of patients with proximal ureteral stones in comparison with transurethral contact ureterolithotripsy. Materials and methods . Twenty-eight patients with urolithiasis were treated, who underwent percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy (PAULT) and 27 patients of the control group, who underwent RULT. All patients included in the study underwent a standard preoperative examination: complete blood count and urine analysis, bacteriological urine culture, biochemical tests, and X-ray research methods. Plain urography, renal ultrasound, computed tomography were used as imaging methods. The OLYMPUS URF-V3 8.4 Ch (Olympus Europa SE & Co. KG., Germany) video uretero-renoscope was used for PAULT in patients of the main group; lithotripsy was performed using thulium laser. The results of the study were subjected to statistical processing in order to determine the statistical significance of the differences between the data obtained. Quantitative variables were described using the arithmetic mean (M) and standard deviation (5). Qualitative variables were estimated by absolute and relative frequencies (percentages). The data were considered reliable at p values < 0.05. Results . The average time of surgical intervention in patients of the main group from the moment of placement of the ureteral catheter was 47 ± 12 min, with access without preliminary renal catheterization: 28 ± 4 min. Average time of surgical intervention in patients of the control group: 42.0 ± 10.7 minutes. The presented data indicate a significant (p < 0.05) greater cases' number of complete stone removal among patients of the main group compared with patients in the control group (74.0%). Conclusion . PAULT is preferred among choice treatment methods for patients with proximal ureteral large stones, for whom RULT and ESWL cannot be performed with a high level of “stone-free” rate and a minimum number of complications.