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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |