Antegrade Percutaneous Versus Retrograde Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy in Upper Ureteric Cases
Antegrade Percutaneous Versus Retrograde Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy
Background: The technical advancements in urology have profoundly changed the management of upper ureteric calculus. The present study compared antegrade percutaneous versus retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy in upper ureteric cases. Subjects and Methods: The present study was conducted at NRI Medical College & Hospital, Chinakakani, Mangalagiri Mandal, Andhra Pradesh from May 2013 to April 2014 on 60 patients with upper ureteric stones of both genders. Patients were divided into 2 groups. Group I patients were treated with antegrade percutaneous and group II with retrograde ureterolithotripsy. Outcome in both groups was recorded and compared. Results: The mean anesthetic time in group I was 82.4 minutes and in group II was 73.1 minutes, operative time was 45.2 minutes in group I and 58.4 minutes in group II, post- operative stay in group I was 2.6 days and in group II was 1.7 days, stone clearance was seen in 26 patients in group I and 22 in group II. Mean stone size in group I was 1.89 cm and in group II was 1.49 cm. Follow ups days were 71.2 in group I and 83.4 in group II. Clavien-Dindo categorization grade 0 was seen in 16 in group I and 13 in group II, grade 1 in 10 in group I and 12 in group II and grade 2 in 4 in group I and 5 in group II. The difference was significant (P< 0.05). There were 4 and 5 patients in group I and group II with post- operative complications (P< 0.05). Conclusion: Authors found that antegrade percutaneous has better stone clearance rates as compared to retrograde ureterolithotripsy for an upper ureteric calculus.
Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Dretler SP, Kahn RI, Lingeman JE, et al. URETERAL STONES CLINICAL GUIDELINES PANEL SUMMARY REPORT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF URETERAL CALCULI. J Urol. 1997;158(5):1915–1921. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)64173-9.
Liong ML, Clayman RV, Gittes RF, Lingeman JE, Huffman JL, Lyon ES. Treatment Options for Proximal Ureteral Urolithi- asis: Review and Recommendations. J Urol. 1989;141(3 Part 1):504–509. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)40874-3.
Ziaee SAM, Halimiasl P, Aminsharifi A, Shafi H, Beigi FMA, Basiri A. Management of 10–15-mm Proximal Ureteral Stones: Ureteroscopy or Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy? Urol. 2008;71(1):28–31. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.08.025.
Park H, Park M, Park T. Two year experience with ureteral stones: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopic manipulation. J Endourol. 1998;12:501–505.
Kato Y, Yamaguchi S, Hori J, Okuyama M, Kakizaki H. Improvement of stone comminution by slow delivery rate of shock waves in extracorporeal lithotripsy. Int J Urol. 2006;13(12):1461–1465. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01609.x.
Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck C, Gallucci M, et al. 2007 Guideline for the Management of Ureteral Calculi. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2418–2434. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.107.
Preminger GM. Management of Ureteral Calculi: The Debate Continues ... J Urol. 1992;148(3 Part 2):1102–1104. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36831-3.
Sfoungaristos S, Mykoniatis I, Isid A, Gofrit ON, Rosenberg S, Hidas G. Retrograde versus Antegrade Approach for the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:6521461–6521461. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1677-8.
Bhat A, Singh V, Bhat M, Khandelwal N, Bhat A. Comparison of antegrade percutaneous ureterolithotripsy and retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy for upper ureteric calculus with regard to stone clearance, morbidity, and complications. Indian J Urol. 2019;35:1–6.
Sfoungaristos S, Mykoniatis I, Isid A, Gofrit ON, Rosenberg S, Hidas G, et al. Retrograde versus Antegrade Approach for the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones. BioMed Res Int. 2016;2016:1–4. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6521461.
Copyright (c) 2020 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.