Is routine ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm?
We evaluated the need for routine ureteral stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm. A total of 43 patients underwent URSL for lower ureteral stones larger than 10 mm. They were randomized into a stented (21) or an unst...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Urolithiasis 2008-05, Vol.36 (2), p.115-119 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 119 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 115 |
| container_title | Urolithiasis |
| container_volume | 36 |
| creator | Kenan, Isen Salih, Bogatekin Suat, Em Huseyin, Ergin Vehbi, Kilic |
| description | We evaluated the need for routine ureteral stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm. A total of 43 patients underwent URSL for lower ureteral stones larger than 10 mm. They were randomized into a stented (21) or an unstented (22) group. URSL was performed by using a semirigid ureteroscope and pneumatic lithotripter without ureteral dilation. Additional forceps application (AFA) was used to remove fragments ≥4 mm. Patients in each group were assessed for stone-free rate, stone size, operative time, AFA, hospitalization time, postoperative pain, irritative voiding symptoms, hematuria, re-hospitalization and stricture formation. The stone-free rate was 100% in each group. There were no statistical differences in the two groups regarding stone size, operative time, AFA, postoperative pain, hematuria and hospitalization time. However, irritative voiding symptoms of the stented group were significantly higher than those in the unstented group (
P
38°C) compared to one patient (4.7%) in the stented group for proximal stent migration (
P
> 0.05). Stricture formation was not demonstrated in either group at 3 months follow-up excretory urography (EXU). Our results demonstrate that ureteral stenting after uncomplicated URSL without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm does not appear to be necessary if AFA is used to remove fragments ≥4 mm, thereby reducing morbidity of patients and risk of re-hospitalization. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00240-008-0135-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_884139064</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70742333</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-d011f8cbef4efedf505e0b4a9ff4c82b84533b806db1d6fddf735cd6207d5e6b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kcGKFDEURYMoTtv6AW4kuHBX-lJJVVIrkUGdgQE3ug6p5GWmhqqkTFLILP0Tv8UvM003NAiTTeC9c2_CvYS8ZvCeAcgPGaAV0ACoBhjvGvmE7JjgogElh6dkBxyg6fqWX5AXOd8DMNkP7XNywRRX3TC0O_L7OtMUtzIFpFvCgsnMNBcMdXJLA1rM2aQHanxd0S3YuKzzZE1Bd-JjtnGdLJ2nchdLmtb8QH1MdI6_DoqzZwyY6WzSbR2XOxMo-_vHLh9fkmfezBlfne49-fHl8_fLq-bm29fry083jeX9UBoHjHllR_QCPTrfQYcwCjN4L6xqRyU6zkcFvRuZ671zXvLOur4F6TrsR74n746-a4o_N8xFL1O2OM8mYNyyliBFy-vZk7f_gfdxS6H-TSslGB-gFxViR8jWAHJCr9c0LTUpzUAfytHHcnQtRx_K0bJq3pyMt3FBd1ac2qhAewRyXYWa0_nlx13_Acn-nrI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>884139064</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is routine ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Kenan, Isen ; Salih, Bogatekin ; Suat, Em ; Huseyin, Ergin ; Vehbi, Kilic</creator><creatorcontrib>Kenan, Isen ; Salih, Bogatekin ; Suat, Em ; Huseyin, Ergin ; Vehbi, Kilic</creatorcontrib><description>We evaluated the need for routine ureteral stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm. A total of 43 patients underwent URSL for lower ureteral stones larger than 10 mm. They were randomized into a stented (21) or an unstented (22) group. URSL was performed by using a semirigid ureteroscope and pneumatic lithotripter without ureteral dilation. Additional forceps application (AFA) was used to remove fragments ≥4 mm. Patients in each group were assessed for stone-free rate, stone size, operative time, AFA, hospitalization time, postoperative pain, irritative voiding symptoms, hematuria, re-hospitalization and stricture formation. The stone-free rate was 100% in each group. There were no statistical differences in the two groups regarding stone size, operative time, AFA, postoperative pain, hematuria and hospitalization time. However, irritative voiding symptoms of the stented group were significantly higher than those in the unstented group (
P
< 0.05). One patient (4.5%) in the unstented group required re-hospitalization for severe flank pain with fever (>38°C) compared to one patient (4.7%) in the stented group for proximal stent migration (
P
> 0.05). Stricture formation was not demonstrated in either group at 3 months follow-up excretory urography (EXU). Our results demonstrate that ureteral stenting after uncomplicated URSL without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm does not appear to be necessary if AFA is used to remove fragments ≥4 mm, thereby reducing morbidity of patients and risk of re-hospitalization.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0300-5623</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2194-7228</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1434-0879</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2194-7236</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00240-008-0135-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18385992</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Female ; Hematuria - etiology ; Humans ; Incidence ; Length of Stay ; Lithotripsy - methods ; Male ; Medical Biochemistry ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Nephrology ; Original Paper ; Pain ; Pain, Postoperative - etiology ; Postoperative Complications ; Prospective Studies ; Stents ; Stone ; Ureter - physiopathology ; Ureter - surgery ; Ureterolithiasis - physiopathology ; Ureterolithiasis - therapy ; Urology ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Urolithiasis, 2008-05, Vol.36 (2), p.115-119</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-d011f8cbef4efedf505e0b4a9ff4c82b84533b806db1d6fddf735cd6207d5e6b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-d011f8cbef4efedf505e0b4a9ff4c82b84533b806db1d6fddf735cd6207d5e6b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18385992$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kenan, Isen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salih, Bogatekin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suat, Em</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huseyin, Ergin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vehbi, Kilic</creatorcontrib><title>Is routine ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm?</title><title>Urolithiasis</title><addtitle>Urol Res</addtitle><addtitle>Urol Res</addtitle><description>We evaluated the need for routine ureteral stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm. A total of 43 patients underwent URSL for lower ureteral stones larger than 10 mm. They were randomized into a stented (21) or an unstented (22) group. URSL was performed by using a semirigid ureteroscope and pneumatic lithotripter without ureteral dilation. Additional forceps application (AFA) was used to remove fragments ≥4 mm. Patients in each group were assessed for stone-free rate, stone size, operative time, AFA, hospitalization time, postoperative pain, irritative voiding symptoms, hematuria, re-hospitalization and stricture formation. The stone-free rate was 100% in each group. There were no statistical differences in the two groups regarding stone size, operative time, AFA, postoperative pain, hematuria and hospitalization time. However, irritative voiding symptoms of the stented group were significantly higher than those in the unstented group (
P
< 0.05). One patient (4.5%) in the unstented group required re-hospitalization for severe flank pain with fever (>38°C) compared to one patient (4.7%) in the stented group for proximal stent migration (
P
> 0.05). Stricture formation was not demonstrated in either group at 3 months follow-up excretory urography (EXU). Our results demonstrate that ureteral stenting after uncomplicated URSL without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm does not appear to be necessary if AFA is used to remove fragments ≥4 mm, thereby reducing morbidity of patients and risk of re-hospitalization.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hematuria - etiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Lithotripsy - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical Biochemistry</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nephrology</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - etiology</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Stents</subject><subject>Stone</subject><subject>Ureter - physiopathology</subject><subject>Ureter - surgery</subject><subject>Ureterolithiasis - physiopathology</subject><subject>Ureterolithiasis - therapy</subject><subject>Urology</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0300-5623</issn><issn>2194-7228</issn><issn>1434-0879</issn><issn>2194-7236</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kcGKFDEURYMoTtv6AW4kuHBX-lJJVVIrkUGdgQE3ug6p5GWmhqqkTFLILP0Tv8UvM003NAiTTeC9c2_CvYS8ZvCeAcgPGaAV0ACoBhjvGvmE7JjgogElh6dkBxyg6fqWX5AXOd8DMNkP7XNywRRX3TC0O_L7OtMUtzIFpFvCgsnMNBcMdXJLA1rM2aQHanxd0S3YuKzzZE1Bd-JjtnGdLJ2nchdLmtb8QH1MdI6_DoqzZwyY6WzSbR2XOxMo-_vHLh9fkmfezBlfne49-fHl8_fLq-bm29fry083jeX9UBoHjHllR_QCPTrfQYcwCjN4L6xqRyU6zkcFvRuZ671zXvLOur4F6TrsR74n746-a4o_N8xFL1O2OM8mYNyyliBFy-vZk7f_gfdxS6H-TSslGB-gFxViR8jWAHJCr9c0LTUpzUAfytHHcnQtRx_K0bJq3pyMt3FBd1ac2qhAewRyXYWa0_nlx13_Acn-nrI</recordid><startdate>20080501</startdate><enddate>20080501</enddate><creator>Kenan, Isen</creator><creator>Salih, Bogatekin</creator><creator>Suat, Em</creator><creator>Huseyin, Ergin</creator><creator>Vehbi, Kilic</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080501</creationdate><title>Is routine ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm?</title><author>Kenan, Isen ; Salih, Bogatekin ; Suat, Em ; Huseyin, Ergin ; Vehbi, Kilic</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-d011f8cbef4efedf505e0b4a9ff4c82b84533b806db1d6fddf735cd6207d5e6b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hematuria - etiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Lithotripsy - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical Biochemistry</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nephrology</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - etiology</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Stents</topic><topic>Stone</topic><topic>Ureter - physiopathology</topic><topic>Ureter - surgery</topic><topic>Ureterolithiasis - physiopathology</topic><topic>Ureterolithiasis - therapy</topic><topic>Urology</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kenan, Isen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salih, Bogatekin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suat, Em</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huseyin, Ergin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vehbi, Kilic</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Urolithiasis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kenan, Isen</au><au>Salih, Bogatekin</au><au>Suat, Em</au><au>Huseyin, Ergin</au><au>Vehbi, Kilic</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is routine ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm?</atitle><jtitle>Urolithiasis</jtitle><stitle>Urol Res</stitle><addtitle>Urol Res</addtitle><date>2008-05-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>115</spage><epage>119</epage><pages>115-119</pages><issn>0300-5623</issn><issn>2194-7228</issn><eissn>1434-0879</eissn><eissn>2194-7236</eissn><abstract>We evaluated the need for routine ureteral stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm. A total of 43 patients underwent URSL for lower ureteral stones larger than 10 mm. They were randomized into a stented (21) or an unstented (22) group. URSL was performed by using a semirigid ureteroscope and pneumatic lithotripter without ureteral dilation. Additional forceps application (AFA) was used to remove fragments ≥4 mm. Patients in each group were assessed for stone-free rate, stone size, operative time, AFA, hospitalization time, postoperative pain, irritative voiding symptoms, hematuria, re-hospitalization and stricture formation. The stone-free rate was 100% in each group. There were no statistical differences in the two groups regarding stone size, operative time, AFA, postoperative pain, hematuria and hospitalization time. However, irritative voiding symptoms of the stented group were significantly higher than those in the unstented group (
P
< 0.05). One patient (4.5%) in the unstented group required re-hospitalization for severe flank pain with fever (>38°C) compared to one patient (4.7%) in the stented group for proximal stent migration (
P
> 0.05). Stricture formation was not demonstrated in either group at 3 months follow-up excretory urography (EXU). Our results demonstrate that ureteral stenting after uncomplicated URSL without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm does not appear to be necessary if AFA is used to remove fragments ≥4 mm, thereby reducing morbidity of patients and risk of re-hospitalization.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>18385992</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00240-008-0135-7</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0300-5623 |
| ispartof | Urolithiasis, 2008-05, Vol.36 (2), p.115-119 |
| issn | 0300-5623 2194-7228 1434-0879 2194-7236 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_884139064 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Female Hematuria - etiology Humans Incidence Length of Stay Lithotripsy - methods Male Medical Biochemistry Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Nephrology Original Paper Pain Pain, Postoperative - etiology Postoperative Complications Prospective Studies Stents Stone Ureter - physiopathology Ureter - surgery Ureterolithiasis - physiopathology Ureterolithiasis - therapy Urology Young Adult |
| title | Is routine ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T03%3A00%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20routine%20ureteral%20stenting%20necessary%20after%20uncomplicated%20ureteroscopic%20lithotripsy%20for%20lower%20ureteral%20stones%20larger%20than%201%C2%A0cm?&rft.jtitle=Urolithiasis&rft.au=Kenan,%20Isen&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=115&rft.epage=119&rft.pages=115-119&rft.issn=0300-5623&rft.eissn=1434-0879&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00240-008-0135-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70742333%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=884139064&rft_id=info:pmid/18385992&rfr_iscdi=true |