Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does a retropulsion prevention device equalize the surgical success of Ho:YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripters for upper ureteral stones? A prospective randomized study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2015) Selection of procedure for active removal of ureteral Stones. European Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis 29

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Westesson KE, Monga M (2012) Asymptomatic renal calculi: incidence and management. AUA Update Series 31:357

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hemal AK, Goel A, Goel R (2003) Minimally invasive retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy. J Urol 169:480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Türk C (chair), Knoll T (vice-chair), Petrik A et al (2015) Intracorporeal lithotripsy. European Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis 28

  8. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Dretler SP (2000) Ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi: prevention of stone migration. J Endourol 14:565

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang CJ, Huang SW, Chang CH (2011) Randomized trial of NTrap for proximal ureteral stones. Urology 77:553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Maislos SD, Volpe M, Albert PS et al (2004) Efficacy of the Stone cone for treatment of proximal ureteral stones. J Endourol 18:862

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

  22. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Department of Urology, Medicine Faculty of Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey

    Sahin Bagbanci, Mumtaz Dadali, Levent Emir & Ayhan Karabulut

  2. Department of Radiology, Medicine Faculty of Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey

    Yeliz Dadalı

  3. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Medicine Faculty of Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey

    Ozkan Gorgulu

Authors
  1. Sahin Bagbanci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mumtaz Dadali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yeliz Dadalı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Levent Emir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ozkan Gorgulu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ayhan Karabulut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sahin Bagbanci.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0930-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation