dc.contributor.author | Perez Castro, Enrique | |
dc.contributor.author | Osther, Palle J. S. | |
dc.contributor.author | Jinga, Viorel | |
dc.contributor.author | Razvi, Hassan | |
dc.contributor.author | Stravodimos, Konstantinos G. | |
dc.contributor.author | Parikh, Kandarp | |
dc.contributor.author | de la Rosette, Jean J. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-08-13T12:10:23Z | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-08-13T16:02:35Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-08-13T12:10:23Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-08-13T16:02:35Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0302-2838 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1873-7560 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.011 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11446/2852 | |
dc.description | WOS: 000339736800028 | en_US |
dc.description | PubMed ID: 24507782 | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Background: Ureteroscopy has traditionally been the preferred approach for treatment of distal and midureteral stones, with shock wave lithotripsy used for proximal ureteral stones. Objective: To describe the differences in the treatment and outcomes of ureteroscopic stones in different locations. Design, setting, and participants: Prospective data were collected by the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society on consecutive patients treated with ureteroscopy at centres around the world over a 1-yr period. Intervention: Ureteroscopy was performed according to study protocol and local clinical practice guidelines. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Stone location, treatment details, postoperative outcomes, and complications were recorded. Pearson's chi-square analysis and analysis of variance were used to compare outcomes among the different stone locations. Results and limitations: Between January 2010 and October 2012, 9681 patients received ureteroscopy treatment for stones located in the proximal ureter (n = 2656), midureter (n = 1980), distal ureter (n = 4479), ormultiplelocations (n = 440); locationin126patientswasnot specified. Semirigid ureteroscopy was predominantly used for all stone locations. Laser and pneumatic lithotripsy were used in the majority of cases. Stone-free rates were 94.2% for distal ureter locations, 89.4% for midureter locations, 84.5% for proximal ureter locations, and 76.6% for multiple locations. For the proximal ureter, failure and retreatment rates were significantly higher for semirigid ureteroscopy than for flexible ureteroscopy. A low incidence of intraoperative complications was reported (3.8-7.7%). Postoperative complications occurred in 2.5-4.6% of patients and varied according to location, with the highest incidence reported for multiple stone locations. Limitations include shortterm follow-up and a nonuniform treatment approach. Conclusions: Ureteroscopy for ureteral stones resulted in good stone-free rates with low morbidity. Patient summary: This study shows that patients who have ureteral stones can be treated successfully with ureteroscopy with a low rate of complications for the patient. (C) 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | Boston Scientific | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | The Ureteroscopy Global Study was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Boston Scientific, which went towards the design and conduct of the study. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.011 | en_US |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess | en_US |
dc.subject | Ureteroscopy | en_US |
dc.subject | Ureteral stones | en_US |
dc.subject | Treatment outcome | en_US |
dc.subject | Complications | en_US |
dc.title | Differences in Ureteroscopic Stone Treatment and Outcomes for Distal, Mid-, Proximal, or Multiple Ureteral Locations: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study | en_US |
dc.type | article | en_US |
dc.relation.journal | EUROPEAN UROLOGY | en_US |
dc.department | DBÜ | en_US |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | en_US |
dc.identifier.volume | 66 | en_US |
dc.identifier.startpage | 102 | en_US |
dc.identifier.endpage | 109 | en_US |
dc.contributor.authorID | 0000-0001-7962-1640 | en_US |
dc.relation.publicationcategory | Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı | en_US |
dc.department-temp | [Perez Castro, Enrique] Clin La Luz, Dept Urol, Madrid, Spain -- [Osther, Palle J. S.] Univ Southern Denmark, Hosp Littlebelt, Fredericia Hosp, Dept Urol, Fredericia, Denmark -- [Jinga, Viorel] Univ Med & Pharm Carol Davila, Prof Dr Th Burghele Hosp, Dept Urol, Bucharest, Romania -- [Razvi, Hassan] Univ Western Ontario, Dept Surg, Schulich Sch Med & Dent, Div Urol, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada -- [Stravodimos, Konstantinos G.] Laiko Hosp, Athens Med Sch, Dept Urol, Athens, Greece -- [Parikh, Kandarp] Shyam Urosurg, Dept Urol, Ahmadabad, Gujarat, India -- [Kural, Ali R.] Bilim Univ, Dept Urol, Istanbul, Turkey -- [de la Rosette, Jean J.] AMC Univ Hosp, Dept Urol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands | en_US |