Аntegrade uterolithotripsy in the treatment of proximal urolithiasis

Authors

  • A.I. Sagalevich Shupyka National Medical Academy of postgraduate education, Ukraine
  • V.V. Ozhohin Shupyka National Medical Academy of postgraduate education; Kyiv regional clinical hospital, Ukraine
  • O.S. Vozianov Shupyka National Medical Academy of postgraduate education, Ukraine
  • R.V. Sergiychuk Shupyka National Medical Academy of postgraduate education; Kyiv regional clinical hospital, Ukraine
  • A.S. Frolov Shupyka National Medical Academy of postgraduate education, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26641/2307-5279.22.2.2018.135448

Keywords:

ureterolithiasis, percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy, mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy

Abstract

Study purpose: to assess the possibility of antegrade percutaneous ureterolithotripsy as an alternative treatment for patients with large calculi of the proximal part of ureter. Patients and methods Results of 75 mini percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy with contact lithotripsy were studied. The mean size of the ureteral calculus was 1,8±0,7 cm. At the same time, in 4 (5,3%) cases, concrements of the proximal ureter of the single kidney. The operations were performed with epidural anesthesia with intravenous sedation, in the patient’s position «on the abdomen» in 62 (82,7%) cases and in the patient’s position «on the back» in 13 (17,3%) cases. Puncture of the renal cavity system was performed with combined ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance. Accesses were performed through the lower calix group in 24 (32,0%) cases, through the middle calix group in 39 (52,0%), and through the upper calix group in 12 (16,0%) cases. Results. The mean time of antegrade mini percutaneous ureterolithotripsy was 58.5±15.4 min, while the stone free rate was achieved in all 75 (100%) of patients. The mean level of hemoglobin drop was not more than 15,5±5.4 GM/DL In the postoperative period, aggravation of pyelonephritis was noted in 6 (8,0%) patients. The operations were ended with the installation of nephrostomy drainage in 29 (38,7%) cases, nephrostomy drainage and internal ureteral JJ stent in 35 (46,7%), and the operation was ended with a tubeless method with installation only ureteral JJ stent in 11 (14,6%) cases. Nephrostomy drainage were removed in 1–3 days. Ureteral stent removed in 14,0±7,0 days. The mean period of postoperative stay of patients in the hospital was 2,3 ± 0,8 days. It was noted that antegrade fibroureteropyeloscopy is an extremely time-consuming and cost-demanding method, which alternative may be percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy with use of mini-nephroscope tubes. Conclusions. Analysis of the treatment of proximal ureterolithiasis with the method of antegrade mini percutaneous ureterolithotripsy indicates that this method is an attractive direction in the treatment of patients with large calculi of the proximal parts of ureter that allows achievement of the full state of the stone free rate, reduction of the time of surgical treatment and hospital stay for patients with this pathology.

References

Turk C., Petrik A., Sarica K., Seitz C., Skolarikos A., Straub M., Knoll T. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis // European Urology. – 2016. – V. 69, Issue 3. – P. 475–482.

el-Nahas A.R,. Eraky I., el-Assmy A.M., Shoma A.M., el-Kenawy M.R., Abdel-Latif M. Percutaneous treatment of large upper tract stones after urinary diversion // Urology. – 2006. – V. 68. – P. 500–504.

Gupta P.K. Is the holmium:YAG laser the best intracorporeal lithotripter for the ureter? A 3-year retrospective study // J. Endourol. – 2007. – V. 21. – Р. 305–309.

Wolf J.S. Treatment selection and outcomes: ureteral calculi // Urol. Clin. North Am. – 2007. – V. 34. – P. 421–430.

Kumar V., Ahlawat R., Banjeree G.K., Bhaduria R.P., Elhence A., Bhandari M. Percutaneous ureterolitholapaxy: the best bet to clear large bulk impacted upper ureteral calculi // Arch. Esp Urol. – 1996. – V. 49. – Р. 86–91.

Goel R., Aron M., Kesarwani P.K., Dogra P.N., Hemal A.K., Gupta N.P. Percutaneous antegrade removal of impacted upper-ureteral calculi: still the treatment of choice in developing countries // J. Endourol. – 2005. – V. 19. – P. 54–57.

Yuh-Shyan Tsai, Yeong-Chin Jou, Cheng-Huang Shen, Chang-Te Lin, Pi-Che Chen, Ming-Chin Cheng. Antegrade ureteroscopic assistance during percutaneous nephrolithotomy for complete renal staghorn stone: Technique and outcomes // Urological Science. – 2015. – V. 26 – P. 61–64.

Winter M., Lynch C., Appu S., Kourambas J. Access sheath-aided percutaneous antegrade ureteroscopy; a novel approach to the ureter // BJU Int. – 2011. – V. 108. – P. 620–622.

Li H., Na W., Jiang Y., Gu X., Zhang M., Huo W., Kong X. Percutaneous Nephro lithotomy Versus Ureteroscopic Lithotomy for Large (>15 mm) Impacted Upper Ureteral Stones in Different Locations: Is the Upper Border of the Fourth Lumbar Vertebra a Good Indication for Choice of Management Method? // J. Endourology. – 2013. – V. 27, N 9. – P. 1046–1050.

de la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients //J. Endourol. – 2014;28(2):131–9.

Sutchin R. Patel, Stephen Y. Nakada. Ureteral Stone Management. A Practical Approach. – 2015. – Switzerland. – P. 220.

Downloads

Published

2018-06-26

Issue

Vol. 22 No. 2 (2018)

Section

Urology

License

Стаття повинна мати візу керівника та офіційне направлення від установи, з якої виходить стаття (з круглою печаткою), і вказівкою, чи є стаття дисертаційною, а також у довільній формі на окремому аркуші - відомості про авторів (прізвище, ім’я, по батькові, посада, вчений ступінь, місце роботи, адреса, контактні телефони, E-mail).

Стаття повина бути підписана всіма авторами, які укладають з редакцією договір пропередачу авторських прав (заповнюється на кожного автора окремо з оригінальним підписом). За таких умов редакція має право на її публікацію та розміщення на сайті видавництва.