Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of a 4.5 F semi-rigid ureteroscope with a 7.5 F rigid ureteroscope in the treatment of ureteral stones in preschool-age children

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the success and complication rates of a 4.5 F ureteroscope with a 7.5 F ureteroscope in the treatment of urolithiasis in preschool-age children. We retrospectively reviewed 69 ureteroscopy (URS) procedures in a pediatric population (40 boys, 29 girls). We divided the patients into two groups according to the type of ureteroscope used: group 1 (n = 42, Storz 7.5 F) and group 2 (n = 27, Wolf 4.5 F). We statistically compared all the procedures performed in both groups regarding patient age, complication rates, whether the procedure was therapeutic, and whether we used a guidewire. Additionally, in cases with ureteral stones, we also compared the stone clearance rate and the necessity of X-ray imaging between the two groups. The mean patient age was 56.04 months in group 1 and 47.48 months in group 2 (p = 0.057). The stone-free rate was 78.6 % in group 1 and 92.6 % in group 2 (p > 0.05). However, when we compared the stone-free rates for patients younger than 3 years, the rate was 66.7 % in group 1 and 93.8 % in group 2 (p < 0.05). The difference was not statistically significant for patients between the ages of 4 and 7 years. The success and failure rates revealed better outcomes for treatment of ureteral stones with a 4.5 F ureteroscope. We recommend the use of the mini-ureteroscope, especially in infants and preschool-age children.

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. Okuyama M (2011) Epidemiology of urolithiasis. Clin Calcium 21(10):1442–1447

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Akinci M, Esen T, Tellaloglu S (1991) Urinary stone disease in Turkey: an updated epidemiological study. Eur Urol 20(3):200–203

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Muslumanoglu AY, Binbay M, Yuruk E, Akman T, Tepeler A, Esen T, Tefekli AH (2011) Updated epidemiologic study of urolithiasis in Turkey. I: changing characteristics of urolithiasis. Urol Res 39(4):309–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Koura AC, Ravish IR, Amarkhed S, Nerli RB, Reddy M (2007) Ureteroscopic stone management in prepubertal children. Pediatr Surg Int 23(11):1123–1126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Smaldone MC, Cannon GM Jr, Wu HY, Bassett J, Polsky EG, Bellinger MF, Docimo SG, Schneck FX (2007) Is ureteroscopy first line treatment for pediatric stone disease? J Urol 178(5):2128–2131 discussion 2131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tanriverdi O, Silay MS, Kendirci M, Kadihasanoglu M, Aydin M, Horasanli K, Miroglu C (2010) Comparison of ureteroscopic procedures with rigid and semirigid ureteroscopes in pediatric population: does the caliber of instrument matter? Pediatr Surg Int 26(7):733–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Smaldone MC, Corcoran AT, Docimo SG, Ost MC (2009) Endourological management of pediatric stone disease: present status. J Urol 181(1):17–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kurzrock EA, Huffman JL, Hardy BE, Fugelso P (1996) Endoscopic treatment of pediatric urolithiasis. J Pediatr Surg 31(10):1413–1416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Minevich E, Rousseau MB, Wacksman J, Lewis AG, Sheldon CA (1997) Pediatric ureteroscopy: technique and preliminary results. J Pediatr Surg 32(4):571–574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sancaktutar A, Atar M, Söylemez H, Bozkurt Y, Penbegül N (2011) Effectiveness of 4.5 F semi-rigid ureteroscope in the management of ureteral stones in children younger than 3 years of age. Turk J Urol (Turk Uroloji Dergisi) 37(4):335–340

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lyon ES, Huffman JL, Bagley DH (1984) Ureteroscopy and ureteropyeloscopy. Urology 23(5 Spec No):29–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Francesca F, Scattoni V, Nava L, Pompa P, Grasso M, Rigatti P (1995) Failures and complications of transurethral ureteroscopy in 297 cases: conventional rigid instruments vs. small caliber semirigid ureteroscopes. Eur Urol 28(2):112–115

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yaycioglu O, Guvel S, Kilinc F, Egilmez T, Ozkardes H (2004) Results with 7.5 F versus 10 F rigid ureteroscopes in treatment of ureteral calculi. Urology 64(4):643–646 discussion 646–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Puppo P, Ricciotti G, Bozzo W, Introini C (1999) Primary endoscopic treatment of ureteric calculi. A review of 378 cases. Eur Urol 36(1):48–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. El-Nahas AR, El-Tabey NA, Eraky I, Shoma AM, El-Hefnawy AS, El-Assmy AM, Soliman S, Youssef RF, El-Kenawy MR, Shokeir AA, El-Kappany HA (2009) Semirigid ureteroscopy for ureteral stones: a multivariate analysis of unfavorable results. J Urol 181(3):1158–1162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. El-Assmy A, Hafez AT, Eraky I, El-Nahas AR, El-Kappany HA (2006) Safety and outcome of rigid ureteroscopy for management of ureteral calculi in children. J Endourol 20(4):252–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yucel S, Akin Y, Kol A, Danisman A, Guntekin E (2011) Experience on semirigid ureteroscopy and pneumatic lithotripsy in children at a single center. World J Urol 29(6):719–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Violette PD, Szymanski KM, Anidjar M, Andonian S (2011) Factors determining fluoroscopy time during ureteroscopy. J Endourol 25(12):1837–1840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jamal JE, Armenakas NA, Sosa RE, Fracchia JA (2011) Perioperative patient radiation exposure in the endoscopic removal of upper urinary tract calculi. J Endourol 25(11):1747–1751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zelenko N, Coll D, Rosenfeld AT, Smith RC (2004) Normal ureter size on unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182(4):1039–1041

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hubert KC, Palmer JS (2005) Passive dilation by ureteral stenting before ureteroscopy: eliminating the need for active dilation. J Urol 174(3):1079–1080 discussion 1080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Huffman JL, Bagley DH (1988) Balloon dilation of the ureter for ureteroscopy. J Urol 140(5):954–956

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Soygur T, Zumrutbas AE, Gulpinar O, Suer E, Arikan N (2006) Hydrodilation of the ureteral orifice in children renders ureteroscopic access possible without any further active dilation. J Urol 176(1):285–287 discussion 287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Satar N, Zeren S, Bayazit Y, Aridogan IA, Soyupak B, Tansug Z (2004) Rigid ureteroscopy for the treatment of ureteral calculi in children. J Urol 172(1):298–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bassiri A, Ahmadnia H, Darabi MR, Yonessi M (2002) Transureteral lithotripsy in pediatric practice. J Endourol 16(4):257–260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Dogan HS, Onal B, Satar N, Aygun C, Piskin M, Tanriverdi O, Gurocak S, Gunay LM, Burgu B, Ozden E, Nazli O, Erdem E, Yucel S, Kefi A, Demirci D, Uluocak N, Aridogan IA, Turunc T, Yalcin V, Kilinc M, Horasanli K, Tan MO, Soygur T, Sarikaya S, Kilicarslan H, Turna B, Doruk HE, Tekgul S (2011) Factors affecting complication rates of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in children: results of multi-institutional retrospective analysis by Pediatric Stone Disease Study Group of Turkish Pediatric Urology Society. J Urol 186(3):1035–1040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ozkan KU, Bakan V, Mil A, Ozturk S (2010) Ureteroscopic stone management in prepubertal children. Urol Int 85(3):320–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Urology, University of Dicle, Diyarbakir, 21280, Turkey

    Murat Atar, Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar, Necmettin Penbegul, Haluk Soylemez, Mehmet Nuri Bodakci, Namik Kemal Hatipoglu, Yasar Bozkurt & Suleyman Cakmakci

Authors
  1. Murat Atar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Necmettin Penbegul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haluk Soylemez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mehmet Nuri Bodakci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Namik Kemal Hatipoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yasar Bozkurt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Suleyman Cakmakci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Murat Atar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Atar, M., Sancaktutar, A.A., Penbegul, N. et al. Comparison of a 4.5 F semi-rigid ureteroscope with a 7.5 F rigid ureteroscope in the treatment of ureteral stones in preschool-age children. Urol Res 40, 733–738 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-012-0489-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-012-0489-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation