‘Boxing in the corner’: A modified retrograde approach for the management of proximal ureteric stones of 1–2 cm
| Autor: | Omar Elgebaly, Ahmed Mahmoud Fahmy, Akram Assem, Tamer Abouyoussif, Faisal Edris, Hussein M. Abdeldaeim, Abdel-Rahman Zahran |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
030219 obstetrics & reproductive medicine medicine.diagnostic_test business.industry Urology medicine.medical_treatment 030232 urology & nephrology Proximal ureter Lithotripsy laser Surgery 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine medicine Retrograde approach Stones/Endourology Ureteroscopy ureteroscopy stones business proximal ureter Research Article |
| Zdroj: | Arab Journal of Urology article-version (VoR) Version of Record |
| ISSN: | 2090-598X |
| DOI: | 10.1080/2090598x.2021.1881421 |
| Popis: | Objectives: To study a modification to the conventional retrograde ureteroscopic approach for treating proximal ureteric stones of 1–2 cm; we intentionally push the stone from the proximal ureter into a favourable calyx then the flexible ureteroscope is used to fragment the trapped stone using laser lithotripsy (‘boxing in the corner’). Patients and methods: The study was conducted in a randomised prospective manner and included 100 patients who presented with a single proximal ureteric stone of 1–2 cm. We randomised the patients into two equal groups: Group A (50 patients) underwent the conventional retrograde technique (CRT) and Group B (50 patients) underwent the modified retrograde technique (MRT) with the primary intention of relocating the stone into a favourable calyx. Intended relocation of the proximal ureteric stone in the MRT group was achieved in a stepwise manner. All intraoperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results: There was no statistical significant difference in terms of the patients’ demographics and stone criteria between the two groups. The stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly higher in Group B (92%) compared to Group A (78%) (P = 0.049). Fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in Group B (P |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|