Abstract
To establish if a retropulsion prevention device for ureteral stones equalizes surgical success and push-back rates of Ho:YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripters for upper ureteral stones. Patients with upper ureteral stones (n = 267) were treated endoscopically at the Department of Urology between April 2014 and December 2015. Patients were randomly assigned to pneumatic and Ho:YAG laser lithotripters as group-1 and group-2, respectively. Lithotripsy was performed with Stone ConeTM in both groups. The surgical success rate on the first postoperative day was 81.5 % (n = 106) and 90.6 % (n = 116) for group-1 and group-2, respectively, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The relation between stone size and surgical success was statistically significant for both groups (p < 0.01). Surgical success for the stones closer than 2 cm to the UPJ was 23.1 % for the pneumatic group versus 64 % for the laser group (p < 0.01). Lithotripsy time was significantly longer in group-2 (16.48 ± 4.74 min) than group-1 (12.24 ± 3.95 min) (p < 0.01). Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy is more successful than pneumatic lithotripsy for upper ureteral stones and a retropulsion prevention device does not equalize the surgical success of Ho:YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripters for upper ureteral stones on the first postoperative day and one month after surgery. Although the success rate of the first month after surgery is higher in group-2, the difference is not statistically significant.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2015) Selection of procedure for active removal of ureteral Stones. European Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis 29
Finch W, Johnstan R, Nadeem Shaida et al (2014) Measuring stone volume- three-dimensional software reconstruction or an ellipsoid algebra Formula? BJU Int 113:610
Westesson KE, Monga M (2012) Asymptomatic renal calculi: incidence and management. AUA Update Series 31:357
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A et al (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41:1149
Hemal AK, Goel A, Goel R (2003) Minimally invasive retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy. J Urol 169:480
Razzaghi MR, Razi A, Mazloomfard MM et al (2013) Safety and efficacy of pneumatic lithotripters versus holmium laser in management of ureteral calculi: a randomized clinical trial. Urol J 10:762
Türk C (chair), Knoll T (vice-chair), Petrik A et al (2015) Intracorporeal lithotripsy. European Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis 28
Piergiovanni M, Desgrandchamps F, Cochand-Priollet B et al (1994) Ureteral and bladder lesions after ballistic, ultrasonic, electrohydraulic, or laser lithotripsy. J Endourol 8:293
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the Consort Group (2010) Consort 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 8:18
Akdeniz E, İrkılata L, Demirel HC et al (2014) A comparison of efficacies of holmium YAG laser, and pneumatic lithotripsy in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral stones. Turk J Urol 40:138
Dretler SP (2000) Ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi: prevention of stone migration. J Endourol 14:565
Seitz C, Tanovic E, Kikic Z et al (2007) Impact of stone size, location, composition, impaction, and hydronephrosis on the efficacy of holmium:YAG-laser ureterolithotripsy. Eur Urol 52:1751
Castro EP, Osther PJS, Jinga V et al (2014) 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. Eur Urol 66:102
Wang CJ, Huang SW, Chang CH (2011) Randomized trial of NTrap for proximal ureteral stones. Urology 77:553
Farahat YA, Elbahnasy AE, Elashry OM (2011) A randomized prospective controlled study for assessment of different ureteral occlusion devices in prevention of stone migration during pneumatic lithotripsy. Urology 77:30
Maislos SD, Volpe M, Albert PS et al (2004) Efficacy of the Stone cone for treatment of proximal ureteral stones. J Endourol 18:862
Rodriguez Garcia N, Fernandez Gonzalez I, Pascual Mateo C et al (2005) Stone cone: a device that prevents ureteral stone migration during intracorporeal lithotripsy. Arch Esp Urol 58:329
Eisner BH, Dretler SP (2009) Use of the stone cone for prevention of calculus retropulsion during holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy: case series and review of the literature. Urol Int 82:356
Chen CS, Wu CF, Shee JJ et al (2005) Holmium:YAG lasertripsy with semirigid ureterorenoscope for upper ureteral stones >2 cm. J Endourol 19:780
Kassem A, Elfayoumy H, Elsaied W et al (2012) Laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in the endoscopic management of large ureteric stones: a comparative study. Urol Int 88:311
Anderson JK, Kabalin JN, Cadeddu JA (2007) Surgical Anatomy of the Retroperitoneum, Adrenals, Kidneys, and Ureters. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC Campbell-Walsh Urology 9th Edition. W.B.Saunders, Philadelphia: Vol 1, Chapter 1, p 3–37
Yu W, Cheng F, Zhang X et al (2010) Retrograde ureteroscopic treatment for upper ureteral stones: a 5-year retrospective study. J Endourol 24:1753
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the contribution of the Academical Study Supporting Unit of Ahi Evran University by the number of PYO-TIP.4005.13.005.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
This study has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The authors have no financial disclosure for this study. Informed consents were obtained from all participants included in the study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bagbanci, S., Dadali, M., Dadalı, Y. et al. Does a retropulsion prevention device equalize the surgical success of Ho:YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripters for upper ureteral stones? A prospective randomized study. Urolithiasis 45, 473–479 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0930-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0930-5