Cargando…

A stone pushed back to the collecting system – long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments

INTRODUCTION: Availability of flexible ureteroscopes is still limited in many countries and centers. Under such circumstances treating small stones pushed from the ureter to the kidney that pose a risk of symptomatic recurrence is controversial as it may require a number of surgical procedures to re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bres-Niewada, Ewa, Dybowski, Bartosz, Zapała, Piotr, Poletajew, Sławomir, Miązek-Zapała, Nina, Michałek, Irmina, Radziszewski, Piotr
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Polish Urological Association 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6051363/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30038808
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2018.1716
_version_ 1783340513386037248
author Bres-Niewada, Ewa
Dybowski, Bartosz
Zapała, Piotr
Poletajew, Sławomir
Miązek-Zapała, Nina
Michałek, Irmina
Radziszewski, Piotr
author_facet Bres-Niewada, Ewa
Dybowski, Bartosz
Zapała, Piotr
Poletajew, Sławomir
Miązek-Zapała, Nina
Michałek, Irmina
Radziszewski, Piotr
author_sort Bres-Niewada, Ewa
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Availability of flexible ureteroscopes is still limited in many countries and centers. Under such circumstances treating small stones pushed from the ureter to the kidney that pose a risk of symptomatic recurrence is controversial as it may require a number of surgical procedures to remove. The aim of this study was to assess the type and number of procedures used to treat stones relocated from the ureter to the collecting system in a high volume urological center with limited access to flexible instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated for ureteral stones in years 2013–2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All procedures performed after stone relocation were counted. Final stone status was determined by ultrasonography and radiography. RESULTS: Out of 75 patients with a stone relocated to the collecting system full follow-up was available for 66. In three patients (4%) the stone remained in the collecting system untreated. Seven patients (11%) passed their stones spontaneously. Active treatment was successful in 45 (68%), while it failed in 11 (17%) patients. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was used 132 times, semi-rigid ureteroscopy 21 times and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy 22 times – 175 procedures altogether (2.6 procedures/patient + accessory procedures such as JJ removal). Shockwave lithotripsy was effective in 7/41 patients, semi-rigid ureteroscopy in 18/21 and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in 22/22 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Treating small stones relocated from the ureter to the collecting system in centers not equipped with flexible endoscopes is inefficient, time-consuming or too invasive. Cost-effectiveness analysis should follow this study to obtain evidence for public health payers to change their policies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6051363
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Polish Urological Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60513632018-07-23 A stone pushed back to the collecting system – long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments Bres-Niewada, Ewa Dybowski, Bartosz Zapała, Piotr Poletajew, Sławomir Miązek-Zapała, Nina Michałek, Irmina Radziszewski, Piotr Cent European J Urol Original Paper INTRODUCTION: Availability of flexible ureteroscopes is still limited in many countries and centers. Under such circumstances treating small stones pushed from the ureter to the kidney that pose a risk of symptomatic recurrence is controversial as it may require a number of surgical procedures to remove. The aim of this study was to assess the type and number of procedures used to treat stones relocated from the ureter to the collecting system in a high volume urological center with limited access to flexible instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated for ureteral stones in years 2013–2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All procedures performed after stone relocation were counted. Final stone status was determined by ultrasonography and radiography. RESULTS: Out of 75 patients with a stone relocated to the collecting system full follow-up was available for 66. In three patients (4%) the stone remained in the collecting system untreated. Seven patients (11%) passed their stones spontaneously. Active treatment was successful in 45 (68%), while it failed in 11 (17%) patients. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was used 132 times, semi-rigid ureteroscopy 21 times and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy 22 times – 175 procedures altogether (2.6 procedures/patient + accessory procedures such as JJ removal). Shockwave lithotripsy was effective in 7/41 patients, semi-rigid ureteroscopy in 18/21 and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in 22/22 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Treating small stones relocated from the ureter to the collecting system in centers not equipped with flexible endoscopes is inefficient, time-consuming or too invasive. Cost-effectiveness analysis should follow this study to obtain evidence for public health payers to change their policies. Polish Urological Association 2018-06-12 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6051363/ /pubmed/30038808 http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2018.1716 Text en Copyright by Polish Urological Association http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Bres-Niewada, Ewa
Dybowski, Bartosz
Zapała, Piotr
Poletajew, Sławomir
Miązek-Zapała, Nina
Michałek, Irmina
Radziszewski, Piotr
A stone pushed back to the collecting system – long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments
title A stone pushed back to the collecting system – long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments
title_full A stone pushed back to the collecting system – long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments
title_fullStr A stone pushed back to the collecting system – long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments
title_full_unstemmed A stone pushed back to the collecting system – long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments
title_short A stone pushed back to the collecting system – long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments
title_sort stone pushed back to the collecting system – long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6051363/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30038808
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2018.1716
work_keys_str_mv AT bresniewadaewa astonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT dybowskibartosz astonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT zapałapiotr astonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT poletajewsławomir astonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT miazekzapałanina astonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT michałekirmina astonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT radziszewskipiotr astonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT bresniewadaewa stonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT dybowskibartosz stonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT zapałapiotr stonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT poletajewsławomir stonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT miazekzapałanina stonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT michałekirmina stonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments
AT radziszewskipiotr stonepushedbacktothecollectingsystemlongtherapeuticpathincenterswithlimitedaccesstoflexibleinstruments