Ureteric Laser Tripsy with and without Stone Cone: Ureteric Laser Tripsy

Muhammad Salman Khan; Khalid Farooq

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v4i12.1224

Authors

Muhammad Salman Khan Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan
Khalid Farooq Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v4i12.1224

Keywords:

Stone Cone, Lithotripsy, Ureteroscopy

Abstract

Stones may block the ureter causing pain and discomfort. Ureteric laser lithotripsy, a notable breakthrough in urology, has transformed the treatment of urinary tract stones. Objectives: To compare the efficacy of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy with and without stone cone. Methods: This retrospective analysis was done at LRH Peshawar's urology department from 1st December 2022 to 31th October 2023. Over the time, 50 patients had ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy. Our research comprised adults over 18 with proximal ureteric stones (>10mm) and hydro ureters on CT KUB. Patients were split into two groups. Group A included 27 patients and employed a 7mm stone cone (Boston Scientific Corp, Natick, MA). No stone cone was utilized in group B (23). Results: This prospective research included 50 adults with radiologically confirmed uretric stones in diverse ureteric sites. Male 35 (70%) and female 15 (30%) were 21–68 years old (mean 38.6 years). Stones size varied from 6 to 20 mm, averaging 12.6mm. Proximal stones were 8–20mm (mean 13.9). Mid-ureter stones were 7–18mm (mean 12.6). Lower ureter stones ranged from 6 to 16mm, with a mean of 11.9mm. Ten (20%) patients have normal pelvicalyceal systems. Patients with moderate hydronephrosis were 27 (55%). Conclusions: The use of a stone cone during ureteroscopic lithotripsy is a safe and effective technique for the management of ureteric stones.

References

Garg S, Mandal AK, Singh SK, Naveen A, Ravimohan M, Aggarwal M, et al. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus ballistic lithotripsy for treatment of ureteric stones: a prospective comparative study. Urologia Internationalis. 2009 May; 82(3): 341-5. doi: 10.1159/000209369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000209369

Berent AC. Ureteral obstructions in dogs and cats: a review of traditional and new interventional diagnostic and therapeutic options. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care. 2011 Apr; 21(2): 86-103. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-4431.2011.00628.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-4431.2011.00628.x

Rodríguez D and Sacco DE. Minimally invasive surgical treatment for kidney stone disease. Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease. 2015 Jul; 22(4): 266-72. doi: 10.1053/j.ackd.2015.03.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ackd.2015.03.005

Shabana W, Teleb M, Dawod T. Safety and efficacy of using the stone cone and an entrapment and extraction device in ureteroscopic lithotripsy for ureteric stones. Arab Journal of Urology. 2015 Jun; 13(2): 75-9. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2015.02.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.02.005

Sen H, Bayrak O, Erturhan S, Urgun G, Kul S, Erbagci A, et al. Comparing of different methods for prevention stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Urologia Internationalis. 2014 Jul; 92(3): 334-8. doi: 10.1159/000351002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000351002

Farahat YA, Elbahnasy AE, Elashry OM. A randomized prospective controlled study for assessment of different ureteral occlusion devices in prevention of stone migration during pneumatic lithotripsy. Urology. 2011 Jan; 77(1): 30-5. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.05.063. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.05.063

Delvecchio FC and Preminger GM. Management of residual stones. Urologic Clinics of North America. 2000 May; 27(2): 347-54. doi: 10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70263-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70263-9

Eisner BH, Pengune W, Stoller ML. Use of an antiretropulsion device to prevent stone retropulsion significantly increases the efficiency of pneumatic lithotripsy: an in vitro study. BJU International. 2009 Sep; 104(6): 858-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08540.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08540.x

Vanlangendonck R and Landman J. Ureteral access strategies: pro-access sheath. Urologic Clinics. 2004 Feb; 31(1): 71-81. doi: 10.1016/S0094-0143(03)00095-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-0143(03)00095-8

Geavlete PA, Georgescu D, Mulţescu R, Geavlete B. Retrograde Ureteroscopy in the Treatment of Upper Urinary Tract Lithiasis. Retrograde Ureteroscopy. Academic Press; 2016 Jan; 105-216. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-802403-4.00006-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802403-4.00006-1

Keller EX, De Coninck V, Traxer O. Next-generation fiberoptic and digital ureteroscopes. Urologic Clinics of North America. 2019 May; 46(2): 147-63. 10.1016/j.ucl.2018.12.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2018.12.001

Antonelli JA. Innovations in surgical stone disease. Current Opinion in Urology. 2016 May; 26(3): 240-7. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000286

Domnick EB. Laser Lithotripsy for Treatment of Canine Urolithiasis. Current Techniques in Small Animals Surgery. 5th Edition. Teton NewMedia; 2014.

Sarkar C, Sharma MC, Deb P, Singh R, Santosh V, Shankar SK. Primary central nervous system lymphoma-A hospital-based study of incidence and clinicopathological features from India (1983-2003). Journal of Neuro-oncology. 2005 Jan; 71: 199-204. doi: 10.1007/s11060-004-1385-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-004-1385-z

Jain R, Raju K, Bali RS, Chander J, Neogi S. Prognostic implications of double J ureteral stenting in patients with renal stones undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2017 Sep; 5(9): 3831. doi: 10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20173639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20173639

Lai S, Jiao B, Diao T, Seery S, Hu M, Wang M, et al. Optimal management of large proximal ureteral stones (> 10 mm): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Surgery. 2020 Aug; 80: 205-17. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.06.025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.06.025

Sen SS, Menon P, Malik MA, Sodhi KS. Outcome of Patients with Antenatally Diagnosed hydronephrosis with Respect to Postnatal Diagnosis and Need for Surgical Intervention. Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons. 2022 May; 27(3): 333.

Bhanot R, Jones P, Somani B. Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of ureteric stones–state-of-the-art review. Research and Reports in Urology. 2021 May; 227-36. doi: 10.2147/RRU.S311010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S311010

Siddiqui AJ, Kumari N, Adnan M, Kumar S, Abdelgadir A, Saxena J, et al. Impregnation of Modified Magnetic Nanoparticles on Low-Cost Agro-Waste-Derived Biochar for Enhanced Removal of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds: Performance Evaluation and Optimization Using Response Surface Methodology. Water. 2023 Apr; 15(9): 1688. doi: 10.3390/w15091688. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/w15091688

Goyal NK, Goel A, Sankhwar SN, Singh V, Singh BP, Sinha RJ, et al. A critical appraisal of complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in paediatric patients using adult instruments. BJU International. 2014 May; 113(5). doi: 10.1111/bju.12506. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12506

Kaleeswaran B, Ramadevi S, Murugesan R, Srigopalram S, Suman T, Balasubramanian T. Evaluation of anti-urolithiatic potential of ethyl acetate extract of Pedalium murex L. on struvite crystal (kidney stone). Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine. 2019 Jan; 9(1): 24-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcme.2017.08.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcme.2017.08.003