Browsing by Subject "Ureteroscopy"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    The effect of SWL and URS on health-related quality of life in proximal ureteral stones
    (Taylor and Francis Ltd, 2018) Ceylan Y.; Ucer O.; Bozkurt O.; Gunlusoy B.; Mertoglu O.; Zumrutbas A.E.; Yildiz G.; Irer B.; Muezzinoglu T.; Demir O.
    Objectives: We aimed to compare the effect of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. Material and methods: Between April 2014 and July 2015, patients with proximal ureteral stones who were successfully treated with URS or SWL in seven different centers were included. Patients were divided into two groups according to stone size: stones ≤10 mm and >10 mm. HRQoL subscales which were evaluated by the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form 36-item survey (SF-36) Turkish version were compared for URS and SWL in these two groups one month after the performed procedure. Results: A total of 273 patients were included in the study. While 116 (52.5%) patients were treated with ureteroscopic lithotripsy, SWL was used for 105 (47.5%) patients. Fifty-two patients were excluded from the study. In proximal ureteral stones ≤10 mm, there were no statistically significant differences for any of the eight subscales of the SF-36 questionnaire. Regarding stones >10 mm, it was found that the three subscales of the SF-36 questionnaire–role limitations because of physical health problems (RP), bodily pain (BP), and general health perception (GH)–were significantly lower in the SWL group compared with the URS group. Conclusions: Patients with proximal ureteral stones >10 mm who were treated with URS generally may have a more favorable HRQoL than those treated with SWL in short-term follow-up. © 2017 Society of Medical Innovation and Technology.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Impact of previous SWL on ureterorenoscopy outcomes and optimal timing for ureterorenoscopy after SWL failure in proximal ureteral stones
    (Springer, 2020) Irer B.; Sahin M.O.; Erbatu O.; Yildiz A.; Ongun S.; Cinar O.; Cihan A.; Sen V.; Ucer O.; Kizilay F.; Bozkurt O.
    Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the impact of previous unsuccessful shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) therapy on ureterorenoscopy (URS) outcomes in proximal ureteral stones and to define whether there is any optimal timing for safe URS after SWL. Methods: The patients who underwent URS for proximal ureteral stones between the years 2015 and 2018 in eight centers were included. Patients were divided into two groups according to previous SWL history; group 1 consisted of patients without SWL before URS for the stone [SWL (−)] and group 2 consisted of patients with a previous SWL for the stone [SWL (+)]. Demographics, operation outcomes and stone characteristics were compared between these two groups. Regarding the complication and success rates, optimal timing for URS after SWL for the stone was calculated with receiver operator characteristics curve analysis. Results: Totally 638 patients were included (group 1: 466 patients and group 2: 172 patients). The operation and hospitalization times, rate of ureteral stenting and complications were significantly higher in group 2. Stone free status was similar between the groups. Optimal timing for URS after SWL was calculated as 16.5 days (AUC = 0.657, p = 0.012) with a sensitivity of 68% and specificity of 72%, regarding the complication rates. Complication rates were significantly higher in patients who were operated before 16.5 days (27.7% vs 6.5%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The optimal timing; 2–3 weeks delay of the URS procedure after unsuccessful SWL may decrease complication rates according to our results. © 2019, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Predictive Factors of Ureterorenoscopy Outcomes in Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Multicenter Study of Aegean Study Group of the Society of Urological Surgery
    (S. Karger AG, 2020) Sen V.; Irer B.; Erbatu O.; Yildiz A.; Ongun S.; Cinar O.; Cihan A.; Sahin M.O.; Ucer O.; Kizilay F.; Bozkurt O.
    Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the predictive factors in a holistic manner for ureterorenoscopy (URS) outcomes in proximal ureteral stones by a multicenter study. Materials and Methods: The data of patients who underwent URS for proximal ureteral stones between the years 2015 and 2018 in eight centers were recorded retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups according to URS success: Group 1 consisted of patients with successful URS, and Group 2 consisted of patients with unsuccessful URS. The two groups were compared in terms of risk factors, stone, and clinical characteristics of patients. Results: A total of 638 patients were included in the study. Group 1 consisted of 527 (82.6%) patients, and Group 2 consisted of 111 (17.4%) patients. In multivariate logistic analysis, the key risk factors for URS success was found to be age (OR = 0.980, 95% [CI] = 0.963-0.996, p = 0.018), stone area (OR = 0.993, 95% [CI] = 0.989-0.997, p = 0.002), and operation time (OR = 0.981, 95% [CI] = 0.968-0.994, p = 0.005). Conclusions: To make the treatment decision of proximal ureteral stones, it is necessary to examine several parameters including available equipment, stone, and patient characteristics. Physicians should keep these risk factors in mind in the decision of treatment options. © 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    The ureteral diameter ratio as a predictive factor in renal scarring associated with primary vesicoureteral reflux
    (Elsevier Ltd, 2023) Akyol Onder E.N.; Ensari E.; Ozkol M.; Yilmaz O.; Taneli C.; Ertan P.
    Introduction: The ureteral diameter ratio (UDR) is reported to be effective in predicting the outcomes of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) in several studies. Objective: The objective of the current study was to compare the risk of scarring in patients with VUR relative to UDR and the VUR grade. We also aimed to demonstrate other associated risk factors in scarring and investigate the long-term complications of VUR and their relationship with UDR. Study design: Patients diagnosed with primary VUR were retrospectively enrolled in the study. UDR was calculated by dividing the largest ureteral diameter (UD) by the distance between L1-L3 vertebral bodies. Demographic and clinical data, laterality, VUR grade, UDR, delayed upper tract drainage on voiding cystourethrogram, recurrent urinary tract infections (UTI), and long-term complications of VUR were compared between the patients with and without renal scars. Results: A total of 127 patients and 177 renal units were included in the study. There was a significant difference between the patients with and without renal scars according to age at diagnosis, bilaterality, reflux grade, UDR, recurrent UTI, bladder bowel dysfunction, hypertension, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate, and proteinuria. The logistic regression analysis revealed that UDR had the highest odds ratio among the factors affecting scarring in VUR. Discussion: VUR grading based on the evaluation of the upper urinary tract is one of the most important predictors for treatment options and prognosis. However, it is more likely to reflect ureterovesical junctional anatomy and function, which play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of VUR. Conclusion: UDR measurement seems to be an objective method that can help clinicians predict renal scarring in patients with primary VUR. [Table presented] © 2023 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company