Comparison of vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for impacted upper ureteral stones
Purpose To compare a novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (VS-URS) with traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (T-URS) for impacted upper ureteral stones and to better define the potential benefits of VS-URS. Methods Between May 2019 and March 2021, 158 patients with impacted up...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | World journal of urology 2022-09, Vol.40 (9), p.2347-2352 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2352 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 2347 |
| container_title | World journal of urology |
| container_volume | 40 |
| creator | Wu, Zhong-Hua Wang, Yong-Zhi Liu, Tong-Zu Wang, Xing-Huan Zhang, Ci Zhang, Wei-Bing Zheng, Hang Zhang, Yin-Gao |
| description | Purpose
To compare a novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (VS-URS) with traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (T-URS) for impacted upper ureteral stones and to better define the potential benefits of VS-URS.
Methods
Between May 2019 and March 2021, 158 patients with impacted upper ureteral stones underwent ureteroscopic holmium-YAG laser lithotripsy. Of these, 76 underwent VS-URS and 82 underwent T-URS. In VS-URS procedures, the vacuum suction device is composed of a 5F ureteral catheter and a tee joint. The ureteral catheter is linked to the vacuum aspirator by the sidearm of the tee joint, and a 200 μm fiber is inserted through the tee joint and the ureteral catheter into the stone site for lithotripsy.
Results
When compared to the T-URS group, the VS-URS group had a shorter mean operation time (38.18 ± 6.37 min vs. 46.65 ± 5.66 min;
P
= 0.000), lower fever rate (3.9% vs. 14.6%;
P
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00345-022-04075-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2691460193</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2691460193</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-36b04ec0943ff94bfc0ff4c41284890e5d19be5ae74cfb45c6ad5ba32c49694c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtLxDAUhYsoOI7-AVcBN26qN03Sx1IGXzDgRtchTRPN0DY1D2F-hX_ZjBUUF7pKyP3OuZycLDvFcIEBqksPQCjLoShyoFCxnOxlC0wJyeuqKPd_3A-zI-83ALgqgS2y95UdJuGMtyOyGr0JGeOAfJTBpJfoVFDOemknI1EvvHKoN-HFBmcmv0Vi7FBwojM7WvT_8to6ZNI-GVSH4jSl8SxJWh_sqPxxdqBF79XJ17nMnm6uH1d3-frh9n51tc4lYUXISdkCVRIaSrRuaKslaE0lxUVN6wYU63DTKiZURaVuKZOl6FgrSCFpUzZUkmV2PvtOzr5G5QMfjJeq78WobPS8KBtMS8ANSejZL3Rjo0txE1VBDelXoUpUMVMy5fdOaT45Mwi35Rj4riM-d8RTR_yzI76zJrPIJ3h8Vu7b-g_VByBhmUM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2708087207</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for impacted upper ureteral stones</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Wu, Zhong-Hua ; Wang, Yong-Zhi ; Liu, Tong-Zu ; Wang, Xing-Huan ; Zhang, Ci ; Zhang, Wei-Bing ; Zheng, Hang ; Zhang, Yin-Gao</creator><creatorcontrib>Wu, Zhong-Hua ; Wang, Yong-Zhi ; Liu, Tong-Zu ; Wang, Xing-Huan ; Zhang, Ci ; Zhang, Wei-Bing ; Zheng, Hang ; Zhang, Yin-Gao</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To compare a novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (VS-URS) with traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (T-URS) for impacted upper ureteral stones and to better define the potential benefits of VS-URS.
Methods
Between May 2019 and March 2021, 158 patients with impacted upper ureteral stones underwent ureteroscopic holmium-YAG laser lithotripsy. Of these, 76 underwent VS-URS and 82 underwent T-URS. In VS-URS procedures, the vacuum suction device is composed of a 5F ureteral catheter and a tee joint. The ureteral catheter is linked to the vacuum aspirator by the sidearm of the tee joint, and a 200 μm fiber is inserted through the tee joint and the ureteral catheter into the stone site for lithotripsy.
Results
When compared to the T-URS group, the VS-URS group had a shorter mean operation time (38.18 ± 6.37 min vs. 46.65 ± 5.66 min;
P
= 0.000), lower fever rate (3.9% vs. 14.6%;
P
< 0.022), less stone retropulsion (5.3% vs. 18.3%;
P
= 0.012), lower extra management rate (6.58% vs. 21.95%;
P
= 0.006), and a higher stone-free rate of the first postoperative day (88.2% vs. 72.0%;
P
= 0.011). There were no significant differences in stone-free rates 1 month after surgery between groups (94.7% vs. 92.7%;
P
= 0.748).
Conclusions
VS-URS is an effective modality for impacted upper ureteral stones, and has a shorter operating time, lower fever rate, less stone retropulsion, and a higher primary stone-free rate compared with T-URS.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1433-8726</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0724-4983</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-8726</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04075-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Catheters ; Fever ; Lasers ; Lithotripsy ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Nephrology ; Oncology ; Original Article ; Urology ; Vacuum</subject><ispartof>World journal of urology, 2022-09, Vol.40 (9), p.2347-2352</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-36b04ec0943ff94bfc0ff4c41284890e5d19be5ae74cfb45c6ad5ba32c49694c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-36b04ec0943ff94bfc0ff4c41284890e5d19be5ae74cfb45c6ad5ba32c49694c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00345-022-04075-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00345-022-04075-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908,41471,42540,51302</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wu, Zhong-Hua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Yong-Zhi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Tong-Zu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xing-Huan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Ci</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Wei-Bing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Hang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yin-Gao</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for impacted upper ureteral stones</title><title>World journal of urology</title><addtitle>World J Urol</addtitle><description>Purpose
To compare a novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (VS-URS) with traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (T-URS) for impacted upper ureteral stones and to better define the potential benefits of VS-URS.
Methods
Between May 2019 and March 2021, 158 patients with impacted upper ureteral stones underwent ureteroscopic holmium-YAG laser lithotripsy. Of these, 76 underwent VS-URS and 82 underwent T-URS. In VS-URS procedures, the vacuum suction device is composed of a 5F ureteral catheter and a tee joint. The ureteral catheter is linked to the vacuum aspirator by the sidearm of the tee joint, and a 200 μm fiber is inserted through the tee joint and the ureteral catheter into the stone site for lithotripsy.
Results
When compared to the T-URS group, the VS-URS group had a shorter mean operation time (38.18 ± 6.37 min vs. 46.65 ± 5.66 min;
P
= 0.000), lower fever rate (3.9% vs. 14.6%;
P
< 0.022), less stone retropulsion (5.3% vs. 18.3%;
P
= 0.012), lower extra management rate (6.58% vs. 21.95%;
P
= 0.006), and a higher stone-free rate of the first postoperative day (88.2% vs. 72.0%;
P
= 0.011). There were no significant differences in stone-free rates 1 month after surgery between groups (94.7% vs. 92.7%;
P
= 0.748).
Conclusions
VS-URS is an effective modality for impacted upper ureteral stones, and has a shorter operating time, lower fever rate, less stone retropulsion, and a higher primary stone-free rate compared with T-URS.</description><subject>Catheters</subject><subject>Fever</subject><subject>Lasers</subject><subject>Lithotripsy</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Nephrology</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Urology</subject><subject>Vacuum</subject><issn>1433-8726</issn><issn>0724-4983</issn><issn>1433-8726</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUtLxDAUhYsoOI7-AVcBN26qN03Sx1IGXzDgRtchTRPN0DY1D2F-hX_ZjBUUF7pKyP3OuZycLDvFcIEBqksPQCjLoShyoFCxnOxlC0wJyeuqKPd_3A-zI-83ALgqgS2y95UdJuGMtyOyGr0JGeOAfJTBpJfoVFDOemknI1EvvHKoN-HFBmcmv0Vi7FBwojM7WvT_8to6ZNI-GVSH4jSl8SxJWh_sqPxxdqBF79XJ17nMnm6uH1d3-frh9n51tc4lYUXISdkCVRIaSrRuaKslaE0lxUVN6wYU63DTKiZURaVuKZOl6FgrSCFpUzZUkmV2PvtOzr5G5QMfjJeq78WobPS8KBtMS8ANSejZL3Rjo0txE1VBDelXoUpUMVMy5fdOaT45Mwi35Rj4riM-d8RTR_yzI76zJrPIJ3h8Vu7b-g_VByBhmUM</recordid><startdate>20220901</startdate><enddate>20220901</enddate><creator>Wu, Zhong-Hua</creator><creator>Wang, Yong-Zhi</creator><creator>Liu, Tong-Zu</creator><creator>Wang, Xing-Huan</creator><creator>Zhang, Ci</creator><creator>Zhang, Wei-Bing</creator><creator>Zheng, Hang</creator><creator>Zhang, Yin-Gao</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T5</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>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220901</creationdate><title>Comparison of vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for impacted upper ureteral stones</title><author>Wu, Zhong-Hua ; Wang, Yong-Zhi ; Liu, Tong-Zu ; Wang, Xing-Huan ; Zhang, Ci ; Zhang, Wei-Bing ; Zheng, Hang ; Zhang, Yin-Gao</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-36b04ec0943ff94bfc0ff4c41284890e5d19be5ae74cfb45c6ad5ba32c49694c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Catheters</topic><topic>Fever</topic><topic>Lasers</topic><topic>Lithotripsy</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Nephrology</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Urology</topic><topic>Vacuum</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wu, Zhong-Hua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Yong-Zhi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Tong-Zu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xing-Huan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Ci</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Wei-Bing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Hang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yin-Gao</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</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>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</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>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>World journal of urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wu, Zhong-Hua</au><au>Wang, Yong-Zhi</au><au>Liu, Tong-Zu</au><au>Wang, Xing-Huan</au><au>Zhang, Ci</au><au>Zhang, Wei-Bing</au><au>Zheng, Hang</au><au>Zhang, Yin-Gao</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for impacted upper ureteral stones</atitle><jtitle>World journal of urology</jtitle><stitle>World J Urol</stitle><date>2022-09-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2347</spage><epage>2352</epage><pages>2347-2352</pages><issn>1433-8726</issn><issn>0724-4983</issn><eissn>1433-8726</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To compare a novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (VS-URS) with traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (T-URS) for impacted upper ureteral stones and to better define the potential benefits of VS-URS.
Methods
Between May 2019 and March 2021, 158 patients with impacted upper ureteral stones underwent ureteroscopic holmium-YAG laser lithotripsy. Of these, 76 underwent VS-URS and 82 underwent T-URS. In VS-URS procedures, the vacuum suction device is composed of a 5F ureteral catheter and a tee joint. The ureteral catheter is linked to the vacuum aspirator by the sidearm of the tee joint, and a 200 μm fiber is inserted through the tee joint and the ureteral catheter into the stone site for lithotripsy.
Results
When compared to the T-URS group, the VS-URS group had a shorter mean operation time (38.18 ± 6.37 min vs. 46.65 ± 5.66 min;
P
= 0.000), lower fever rate (3.9% vs. 14.6%;
P
< 0.022), less stone retropulsion (5.3% vs. 18.3%;
P
= 0.012), lower extra management rate (6.58% vs. 21.95%;
P
= 0.006), and a higher stone-free rate of the first postoperative day (88.2% vs. 72.0%;
P
= 0.011). There were no significant differences in stone-free rates 1 month after surgery between groups (94.7% vs. 92.7%;
P
= 0.748).
Conclusions
VS-URS is an effective modality for impacted upper ureteral stones, and has a shorter operating time, lower fever rate, less stone retropulsion, and a higher primary stone-free rate compared with T-URS.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1007/s00345-022-04075-3</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1433-8726 |
| ispartof | World journal of urology, 2022-09, Vol.40 (9), p.2347-2352 |
| issn | 1433-8726 0724-4983 1433-8726 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2691460193 |
| source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Catheters Fever Lasers Lithotripsy Medicine Medicine & Public Health Nephrology Oncology Original Article Urology Vacuum |
| title | Comparison of vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for impacted upper ureteral stones |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T15%3A52%3A47IST&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=Comparison%20of%20vacuum%20suction%20ureteroscopic%20laser%20lithotripsy%20and%20traditional%20ureteroscopic%20laser%20lithotripsy%20for%20impacted%20upper%20ureteral%20stones&rft.jtitle=World%20journal%20of%20urology&rft.au=Wu,%20Zhong-Hua&rft.date=2022-09-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2347&rft.epage=2352&rft.pages=2347-2352&rft.issn=1433-8726&rft.eissn=1433-8726&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00345-022-04075-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2691460193%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=2708087207&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |