Gelişmiş Arama

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorPerez Castro, Enrique
dc.contributor.authorOsther, Palle J. S.
dc.contributor.authorJinga, Viorel
dc.contributor.authorRazvi, Hassan
dc.contributor.authorStravodimos, Konstantinos G.
dc.contributor.authorParikh, Kandarp
dc.contributor.authorde la Rosette, Jean J.
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-13T12:10:23Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-13T16:02:35Z
dc.date.available2019-08-13T12:10:23Z
dc.date.available2019-08-13T16:02:35Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.issn0302-2838
dc.identifier.issn1873-7560
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.011
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11446/2852
dc.descriptionWOS: 000339736800028en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 24507782en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.sponsorshipBoston Scientificen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThe 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.isoengen_US
dc.publisherELSEVIER SCIENCE BVen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.011en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectUreteroscopyen_US
dc.subjectUreteral stonesen_US
dc.subjectTreatment outcomeen_US
dc.subjectComplicationsen_US
dc.titleDifferences in Ureteroscopic Stone Treatment and Outcomes for Distal, Mid-, Proximal, or Multiple Ureteral Locations: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Studyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalEUROPEAN UROLOGYen_US
dc.departmentDBÜen_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.volume66en_US
dc.identifier.startpage102en_US
dc.identifier.endpage109en_US
dc.contributor.authorID0000-0001-7962-1640en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_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, Netherlandsen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster