Treatment of ureterolithiasis with the use of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy

Authors

  • A. I. Sagalevich National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named after P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • O. S. Vozianov National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named after P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • V. V. Ozhohin National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named after P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • B. V. Dzhuran National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named after P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • V. V. Kogut National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named after P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • F. Z. Gaysenyuk National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named after P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,
  • R. V. Sergiychuk National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education named after P. L. Shupyk, Kyiv, Ukraine,

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14739/2310-1210.2018.02.124838

Keywords:

ureterolithiasis, percutaneous lithotripsy, mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy

Abstract

Study purpose – to assess the possibility of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy as an alternative treatment for patients with large calculi of the proximal part of ureter.

Patients and methods. Results of 75 mini percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy with contact lithotripsy were studied. The mean size of the ureteral calculi was 1.8 ± 0.7 cm. The operations were performed with epidural anesthesia with intravenous sedation, in the patient's position “on the abdomen” in 62 (82.7 %) cases and in the patient's position “on the back” in 13 (17.3 %) cases. Puncture of the renal cavity system was performed with combined ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance. Accesses were performed through the lower calices group in 14 (18.7 %) cases, through the middle calices group in 39 (52.0 %), and through the upper calices group in 22 (29.3 %) cases.

Results. The mean time of mini percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy was 58.5 ± 15.4 min, while the stone free rate was achieved in all 100% of patients. The mean level of hemoglobin drop was not more than 15.5 ± 5.4 GM/DL In the postoperative period, aggravation of pyelonephritis was noted in 8 (10.6 %) patients. Nephrostomy drainage followed percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy in 24 (32.0 %) cases, nephrostomy drainage and internal ureteral JJ stent in 33 (44.0 %), and the operation was ended with a tubeless method with only ureteral JJ stent placement in 14 (18.7%) cases. Nephrostomy drainage, as well as ureteral stants (with tubeless method), were removed in 1–2 days. The mean period of postoperative stay of patients in the hospital was 2.3 ± 0.8 days. It was noted that antegrade fiberureteropyeloscopy is an extremely time-consuming and cost-demanding method, as an alternative to which may be percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy with use of mini-nephroscope tubes.

Conclusions. Analysis of urolithiasis treatment with the method of mini percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy indicates that this method is an attractive direction in the treatment of patients with large calculi of the proximal parts of ureter that allows achievement of the full stone free rate state, time of surgical treatment and hospital stay for patients with this pathology reduction.

References

Türk, C., Petřík, A., Sarica, K., Seitz, C., Skolarikos, A., Straub, M., & Knoll, T. (2016). EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. European Urology, 69(3), 475–482. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041.

el-Nahas, A. R,. Eraky, I., el-Assmy, A. M., Shoma, A. M., el-Kenawy, M. R., Abdel-Latif, M., et al. (2006). Percutaneous treatment of large upper tract stones after urinary diversion. Urology, 68, 500–504. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.03.065.

Rhee, B. K., Bretan, P. N., & Jr Stoller, M. L. (1999). Urolithiasis in renal and combined pancreas/renal transplant recipients. J. Urology, 161, 1458–1462. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68926-4.

Gupta, P. K. (2007) Is the holmium:YAG laser the best intracorporeal lithotripter for the ureter? A 3-year retrospective study. J. Endourol, 21, 305–309. doi: 10.1089/end.2006.0247.

Wolf, J. S. (2007). Treatment selection and outcomes: ureteral calculi. Urol. Clin. North Am., 34, 421–430. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2007.04.010.

Kumar, V., Ahlawat, R., Banjeree, G. K., Bhaduria, R. P., Elhence, A., & Bhandari, M. (1996). Percutaneous ureterolitholapaxy: the best bet to clear large bulk impacted upper ureteral calculi. Arch. Esp Urol., 49, 86–91.

Goel, R., Aron, M., Kesarwani, P. K., Dogra, P. N., Hemal, A. K., & Gupta, N. P. (2005). Percutaneous antegrade removal of impacted upper-ureteral calculi: still the treatment of choice in developing countries. J. Endourol., 19, 54–57. doi: 10.1089/end.2005.19.54.

Yuh-Shyan, Tsai, Yeong-Chin, Jou, Cheng-Huang, Shen, Chang-Te, Lin, Pi-Che, Chen, & Ming-Chin, Cheng. (2015). Antegrade ureteroscopic assistance during percutaneous nephrolithotomy for complete renal staghorn stone: Technique and outcomes. Urological Science, 26, 61–64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urols.2014.09.002

Winter, M., Lynch, C., Appu, S., & Kourambas, J. (2011). Access sheath-aided percutaneous antegrade ureteroscopy; a novel approach to the ureter. BJU Int., 108(4), 620–622. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10538.x.

Li, H., Na, W., Jiang, Y., Gu, X., Zhang, M., Huo, W., & Kong, X. (2013) Percutaneous Nephro lithotomy Versus Ureteroscopic Lithotomy for Large (>15 mm) Impacted Upper Ureteral Stones in Different Locations: Is the Upper Border of the Fourth Lumbar Vertebra a Good Indication for Choice of Management Method? J. Endourology, 27(9), 1046–1050. doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0535.

Downloads

How to Cite

1.
Sagalevich AI, Vozianov OS, Ozhohin VV, Dzhuran BV, Kogut VV, Gaysenyuk FZ, Sergiychuk RV. Treatment of ureterolithiasis with the use of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy. Zaporozhye medical journal [Internet]. 2018Mar.7 [cited 2024Apr.20];(2). Available from: http://zmj.zsmu.edu.ua/article/view/124838

Issue

No. 2 (2018)

Section

Original research

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.  Лицензия Creative Commons
    2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
    3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)