Cargando…

Prospective randomized comparison between fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ureteroscopy with real-time ultrasonography for the management of ureteral stones

CONTEXT AND AIMS: Ureteroscopy is the definitive management for ureteric stone. Conventional ureteroscopy uses fluoroscopy guidance which has radiation exposure to patients as well as hospital staff. Ultrasound is a good radiation-free alternative for using in the urological procedure. With this bac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Singh, Vishwajeet, Purkait, Bimalesh, Sinha, Rahul Janak
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5100145/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28057984
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.192098
_version_ 1782466079543525376
author Singh, Vishwajeet
Purkait, Bimalesh
Sinha, Rahul Janak
author_facet Singh, Vishwajeet
Purkait, Bimalesh
Sinha, Rahul Janak
author_sort Singh, Vishwajeet
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT AND AIMS: Ureteroscopy is the definitive management for ureteric stone. Conventional ureteroscopy uses fluoroscopy guidance which has radiation exposure to patients as well as hospital staff. Ultrasound is a good radiation-free alternative for using in the urological procedure. With this background, we executed a prospective randomized trial comparing fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ultrasound-guided ureteroscopy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized into two groups (41 into fluoroscopy and 41 into ultrasound group after exclusion) in a single center from July 2014 to March 2015. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy was used in all cases. Ultrasound was used to place guide wire and postprocedure stents placement in ultrasound group. Patient's characteristics; intra- and post-operative parameters were compared between the two groups. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: SPSS version 16.0 (Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. The results were presented as percentages and means (± standard deviation). The categorical/dichotomous variables were analyzed using Chi-squared test. Continuous variables were analyzed using unpaired t-test. RESULTS: A total of 102 adult patients were randomized in this trial and eighty patients undergo the final analysis. Mean stone burden was 41.75 ± 13.44 (17.94–79.20 mm(2)). Mean operative time was 43.90 ± 12.99 (25–82 min) in fluoroscopy group versus 45.61 ± 11.62 (28–78 min) in ultrasound group. The initial success rate was 93.75% (92.30% in fluoroscopy vs. 95.12% in ultrasound group). Overall complications noted in 8.75% and most of the complications were minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided ureteroscopy is safe and effectively for ureteric stone. Fluoroscopy can be avoided during ureteroscopy for uncomplicated stone. No radiation ureteroscopy is feasible with good success and minimal complication. Larger sample size with multicentric trial needed for its greater applicability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5100145
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51001452017-01-05 Prospective randomized comparison between fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ureteroscopy with real-time ultrasonography for the management of ureteral stones Singh, Vishwajeet Purkait, Bimalesh Sinha, Rahul Janak Urol Ann Original Article CONTEXT AND AIMS: Ureteroscopy is the definitive management for ureteric stone. Conventional ureteroscopy uses fluoroscopy guidance which has radiation exposure to patients as well as hospital staff. Ultrasound is a good radiation-free alternative for using in the urological procedure. With this background, we executed a prospective randomized trial comparing fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ultrasound-guided ureteroscopy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized into two groups (41 into fluoroscopy and 41 into ultrasound group after exclusion) in a single center from July 2014 to March 2015. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy was used in all cases. Ultrasound was used to place guide wire and postprocedure stents placement in ultrasound group. Patient's characteristics; intra- and post-operative parameters were compared between the two groups. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: SPSS version 16.0 (Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. The results were presented as percentages and means (± standard deviation). The categorical/dichotomous variables were analyzed using Chi-squared test. Continuous variables were analyzed using unpaired t-test. RESULTS: A total of 102 adult patients were randomized in this trial and eighty patients undergo the final analysis. Mean stone burden was 41.75 ± 13.44 (17.94–79.20 mm(2)). Mean operative time was 43.90 ± 12.99 (25–82 min) in fluoroscopy group versus 45.61 ± 11.62 (28–78 min) in ultrasound group. The initial success rate was 93.75% (92.30% in fluoroscopy vs. 95.12% in ultrasound group). Overall complications noted in 8.75% and most of the complications were minor in nature. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided ureteroscopy is safe and effectively for ureteric stone. Fluoroscopy can be avoided during ureteroscopy for uncomplicated stone. No radiation ureteroscopy is feasible with good success and minimal complication. Larger sample size with multicentric trial needed for its greater applicability. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5100145/ /pubmed/28057984 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.192098 Text en Copyright: © Urology Annals http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Singh, Vishwajeet
Purkait, Bimalesh
Sinha, Rahul Janak
Prospective randomized comparison between fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ureteroscopy with real-time ultrasonography for the management of ureteral stones
title Prospective randomized comparison between fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ureteroscopy with real-time ultrasonography for the management of ureteral stones
title_full Prospective randomized comparison between fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ureteroscopy with real-time ultrasonography for the management of ureteral stones
title_fullStr Prospective randomized comparison between fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ureteroscopy with real-time ultrasonography for the management of ureteral stones
title_full_unstemmed Prospective randomized comparison between fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ureteroscopy with real-time ultrasonography for the management of ureteral stones
title_short Prospective randomized comparison between fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ureteroscopy with real-time ultrasonography for the management of ureteral stones
title_sort prospective randomized comparison between fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ureteroscopy with real-time ultrasonography for the management of ureteral stones
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5100145/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28057984
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.192098
work_keys_str_mv AT singhvishwajeet prospectiverandomizedcomparisonbetweenfluoroscopyguidedureteroscopyversusureteroscopywithrealtimeultrasonographyforthemanagementofureteralstones
AT purkaitbimalesh prospectiverandomizedcomparisonbetweenfluoroscopyguidedureteroscopyversusureteroscopywithrealtimeultrasonographyforthemanagementofureteralstones
AT sinharahuljanak prospectiverandomizedcomparisonbetweenfluoroscopyguidedureteroscopyversusureteroscopywithrealtimeultrasonographyforthemanagementofureteralstones