半硬质输尿管镜下输尿管结石铥纤维激光与气压碎石治疗的安全性和有效性。

0 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Abhay Dinkar Mahajan, Saiswaroop Yamajala, Sumeet Abhay Mahajan
{"title":"半硬质输尿管镜下输尿管结石铥纤维激光与气压碎石治疗的安全性和有效性。","authors":"Abhay Dinkar Mahajan, Saiswaroop Yamajala, Sumeet Abhay Mahajan","doi":"10.5152/tud.2025.25011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective: During the treatment of ureteric stones by semirigid ureteroscopy, pneumatic, and laser lithotripsy are commonly used for stone lithotripsy. This is the first prospective study to compare pneumatic with thulium fiber laser (TFL) lithotripsy for ureteric stones during semirigid ureteroscopy. Methods: A prospective evaluation was conducted on 100 patients, divided into group A (50 patients) who underwent TFL lithotripsy and group B (50 patients) who underwent pneumatic lithotripsy for ureteric stones treated by ureteroscopy. Urine culture and plain computed tomography (CT) scan were done in all the patients. Intraoperative stone clearance was assessed by endoscopic inspection and fluoroscopic evaluation. Postoperative stone clearance was evaluated at 7 days and 3 months by sonography and plain x-ray. Those patients with persistent or increased hydroureteronephrosis were further evaluated by CT scan to detect residual fragments and/or ureteric strictures. Results: The stone size, volume, and HU were comparable in both the groups. The lithotripsy time with TFL was significantly longer compared to pneumatic (12.41 vs. 5.16 minutes). Intraoperatively, the vision was better with TFL as compared to the pneumatic group (2 vs. 10 patients). Retropulsion was significantly less with TFL com- pared to pneumatic lithotripsy (2 vs. 10 patients). The complications and the stone-free rates were comparable in both the groups. Conclusion: Thulium fiber laser has distinct advantage of better vision and less retropulsion compared to pneumatic lithotripsy. It is also a safer modality as compared to the conventional pneumatic lithotripsy during the treatment of ureteric stones with ureteroscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":101337,"journal":{"name":"Urology research & practice","volume":"51 2","pages":"60-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and Efficacy of Thulium Fiber Laser Versus Pneumatic Lithotripsy in Ureteric Stones During Semirigid Ureteroscopy.\",\"authors\":\"Abhay Dinkar Mahajan, Saiswaroop Yamajala, Sumeet Abhay Mahajan\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/tud.2025.25011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Objective: During the treatment of ureteric stones by semirigid ureteroscopy, pneumatic, and laser lithotripsy are commonly used for stone lithotripsy. This is the first prospective study to compare pneumatic with thulium fiber laser (TFL) lithotripsy for ureteric stones during semirigid ureteroscopy. Methods: A prospective evaluation was conducted on 100 patients, divided into group A (50 patients) who underwent TFL lithotripsy and group B (50 patients) who underwent pneumatic lithotripsy for ureteric stones treated by ureteroscopy. Urine culture and plain computed tomography (CT) scan were done in all the patients. Intraoperative stone clearance was assessed by endoscopic inspection and fluoroscopic evaluation. Postoperative stone clearance was evaluated at 7 days and 3 months by sonography and plain x-ray. Those patients with persistent or increased hydroureteronephrosis were further evaluated by CT scan to detect residual fragments and/or ureteric strictures. Results: The stone size, volume, and HU were comparable in both the groups. The lithotripsy time with TFL was significantly longer compared to pneumatic (12.41 vs. 5.16 minutes). Intraoperatively, the vision was better with TFL as compared to the pneumatic group (2 vs. 10 patients). Retropulsion was significantly less with TFL com- pared to pneumatic lithotripsy (2 vs. 10 patients). The complications and the stone-free rates were comparable in both the groups. Conclusion: Thulium fiber laser has distinct advantage of better vision and less retropulsion compared to pneumatic lithotripsy. It is also a safer modality as compared to the conventional pneumatic lithotripsy during the treatment of ureteric stones with ureteroscopy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urology research & practice\",\"volume\":\"51 2\",\"pages\":\"60-65\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urology research & practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2025.25011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology research & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2025.25011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在半硬质输尿管镜下治疗输尿管结石时,气压碎石和激光碎石是常用的碎石方法。这是第一个比较气动和铥纤维激光(TFL)碎石治疗输尿管结石在半硬质输尿管镜下的前瞻性研究。方法:对100例输尿管结石患者进行前瞻性评价,分为A组(50例)行TFL碎石术,B组(50例)行输尿管镜治疗输尿管结石行气压碎石术。所有患者均行尿培养及CT扫描。通过内镜检查和透视评估术中结石清除情况。术后7天和3个月分别通过超声和x线平片评估结石清除情况。对于持续性或加重的肾盂积水患者,进一步通过CT扫描检查残余碎片和/或输尿管狭窄。结果:两组结石的大小、体积和HU具有可比性。TFL的碎石时间明显长于气动(12.41分钟vs. 5.16分钟)。术中,与气动组相比,TFL组的视力更好(2例对10例)。与气压碎石术相比,TFL术的反冲明显减少(2例对10例)。两组的并发症和结石清除率相当。结论:与气动碎石相比,铥光纤激光有明显的优势,视力好,后退力小。在输尿管镜下治疗输尿管结石时,与传统的气压碎石相比,它也是一种更安全的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Safety and Efficacy of Thulium Fiber Laser Versus Pneumatic Lithotripsy in Ureteric Stones During Semirigid Ureteroscopy.

Objective: During the treatment of ureteric stones by semirigid ureteroscopy, pneumatic, and laser lithotripsy are commonly used for stone lithotripsy. This is the first prospective study to compare pneumatic with thulium fiber laser (TFL) lithotripsy for ureteric stones during semirigid ureteroscopy. Methods: A prospective evaluation was conducted on 100 patients, divided into group A (50 patients) who underwent TFL lithotripsy and group B (50 patients) who underwent pneumatic lithotripsy for ureteric stones treated by ureteroscopy. Urine culture and plain computed tomography (CT) scan were done in all the patients. Intraoperative stone clearance was assessed by endoscopic inspection and fluoroscopic evaluation. Postoperative stone clearance was evaluated at 7 days and 3 months by sonography and plain x-ray. Those patients with persistent or increased hydroureteronephrosis were further evaluated by CT scan to detect residual fragments and/or ureteric strictures. Results: The stone size, volume, and HU were comparable in both the groups. The lithotripsy time with TFL was significantly longer compared to pneumatic (12.41 vs. 5.16 minutes). Intraoperatively, the vision was better with TFL as compared to the pneumatic group (2 vs. 10 patients). Retropulsion was significantly less with TFL com- pared to pneumatic lithotripsy (2 vs. 10 patients). The complications and the stone-free rates were comparable in both the groups. Conclusion: Thulium fiber laser has distinct advantage of better vision and less retropulsion compared to pneumatic lithotripsy. It is also a safer modality as compared to the conventional pneumatic lithotripsy during the treatment of ureteric stones with ureteroscopy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信