Advertisement

International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 989–995 | Cite as

Evaluation of pneumatic versus holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted ureteral stones

  • Murat BinbayEmail author
  • Abdulkadir Tepeler
  • Avinash Singh
  • Tolga Akman
  • Erdem Tekinaslan
  • Omer Sarilar
  • Murat Baykal
  • Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
Urology – Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

We prospectively analyzed and compared the effectiveness and complications of pneumatic lithotripter with a holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet (Ho:YAG) laser for the ureterorenoscopic management of impacted ureteral stones.

Materials and methods

From January 2006 to January 2008, we performed retrograde endoscopic treatment in 288 patients with ureteral stones in our clinic. The patients with impacted stones were randomized into two groups according to the lithotripter used to fragment the stone: pneumatic (n = 40) and laser (n = 40). The preoperative, operative, and post-operative follow-up findings were analyzed and compared.

Results

The average stone size was similar in both groups (118.8 ± 58.3 mm2 vs. 110.7 ± 54.4 mm2). The calculi were located in the distal ureter in most of the patients in both groups (65% in pneumatic group and 52.5% in laser group). The operation time was significantly diminished in the laser group (P = 0.001). The stone-free rates after a single ureteroscopic procedure were 80 and 97.5% in the pneumatic and laser groups, respectively (P = 0.03). Auxiliary treatments were needed in seven patients in the pneumatic group, while only one patient in the laser group (P = 0.05) needed this treatment. After the additional procedures, a 100% success rate was achieved in both groups. The rate of double J stent insertion was significantly higher in the pneumatic group (P = 0.01). In the pneumatic group, four cases of stone up-migration and one case of post-operative stricture were seen, whereas only one case of stone up-migration was noted in the laser group.

Conclusion

Our comparative study has shown that the use of Ho:YAG as an intracorporeal lithotripter during ureteroscopic management of impacted ureteral stones is highly efficient with high success rates, regardless of the stone location.

Keywords

Impacted ureter stone Laser lithotripsy Pneumatic lithotripsy Ureteroscopy Urolithiasis 

References

  1. 1.
    Deliveliotis C, Chrisofos M, Albanis S et al (2003) Management and follow up impacted utereral stones. Urol Int 70:269–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morgentaler A, Bridge SS, Dretler SP (1990) Management of the impacted ureteral calculus. J Urol 143:263–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dretler SP, Keating MA, Riley J (1986) An algorithm for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 136:1190–1193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lingeman JE, Shirrell WL, Newman DM et al (1987) Management of upper ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 138:720–723PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mueller SC, Wilbert D, Thueroff JW et al (1986) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones: clinical experience and experimental findings. J Urol 135:831–834PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaussy CG, Fuchs GJ (1989) Current state and future developments of noninvasive treatment of human urinary stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 141:782–789PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mugiya S, Nagata M, Un-No T et al (2000) Endoscopic management of impacted ureteral stones using a small caliber ureteroscope and a laser lithotriptor. J Urol 164:329–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Elganainy E, Hameed DA, Elgammal M, Abd-Elsayed AA, Shalaby M (2009) Experience with impacted upper ureteral stones; should we abandon using semirigid ureteroscopes and pneumatic lithoclast? Int Arch Med 2(1):13–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manohar T, Ganpule A, Desai M (2008) Comparative evaluation of Swiss LithoClast 2 and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted upper-ureteral stones. J Endourol 22:443–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sun X, Xia S, Lu J et al (2008) Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. J Endourol 22:913–917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hofbauer J, Hobarth K, Marberger M (1992) LithoClast: New and inexpensive mode of intracorporeal lithotripsy. J Endourol 6:429–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2010) Guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Assoc Urol 1–106Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huffman JL, Bagley DH, Lyon ES (1985) Abnormal ureter and intrarenal collecting system. In: Bagley DH, Huffman JL, Lyon ES (eds) Urologic endoscopy: a manual and atlas, Chapter 6. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, pp 59–73Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dretler SP, Young RH (1993) Stone granuloma: a cause of ureteral stricture. J Urol 150:1800–1802PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Motola JA, Smith AD (1992) Complications of ureteroscopy: prevention and treatment. AUA update series, volume 11, lesson 21Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cotran RS, Kumar V, Robbins SL (1989) Robbins pathologic basis of disease, chapter 3, 4th edn. W.B.Saunders Co, Philadelphia, pp 39–86Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mitchinson MJ, Bird DR (1971) Urinary leakage and retroperitoneal fibrosis. J Urol 105:56–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roberts WW, Cadeddu JA, Micali S et al (1998) Ureteral stricture formation after removal of impacted calculi. J Urol 159:723–726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brito Artur H, Mitre Anuar I, Miguel Srougi (2006) Ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy of impacted ureteral calculi. Int Braz J Urol 32:295–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 82:356–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dretler SP (2001) The stone cone: a new generation of basketry. J Urol 165:1593–1596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Desai MR, Patel SB, Desai MM et al (2002) The Dretler stone cone: a device to prevent ureteral stone migration-the initial clinical experience. J Urol 167:1985–1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 52:1751–1759PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dushinski JW, Lingeman JE (1997) Urologic applications of the Holmium laser. Tech Urol 3:60–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teichman JM (2002) Laser lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol 12:305–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murat Binbay
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abdulkadir Tepeler
    • 2
  • Avinash Singh
    • 1
  • Tolga Akman
    • 1
  • Erdem Tekinaslan
    • 1
  • Omer Sarilar
    • 1
  • Murat Baykal
    • 1
  • Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyHaseki Training and Research HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Urology, Faculty of MedicineBezmialem Vakif UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations