These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Is routine ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm?
    Author: Isen K, Bogatekin S, Em S, Ergin H, Kilic V.
    Journal: Urol Res; 2008 May; 36(2):115-9. PubMed ID: 18385992.
    Abstract:
    We evaluated the need for routine ureteral stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm. A total of 43 patients underwent URSL for lower ureteral stones larger than 10 mm. They were randomized into a stented (21) or an unstented (22) group. URSL was performed by using a semirigid ureteroscope and pneumatic lithotripter without ureteral dilation. Additional forceps application (AFA) was used to remove fragments > or =4 mm. Patients in each group were assessed for stone-free rate, stone size, operative time, AFA, hospitalization time, postoperative pain, irritative voiding symptoms, hematuria, re-hospitalization and stricture formation. The stone-free rate was 100% in each group. There were no statistical differences in the two groups regarding stone size, operative time, AFA, postoperative pain, hematuria and hospitalization time. However, irritative voiding symptoms of the stented group were significantly higher than those in the unstented group (P < 0.05). One patient (4.5%) in the unstented group required re-hospitalization for severe flank pain with fever (>38 degrees C) compared to one patient (4.7%) in the stented group for proximal stent migration (P > 0.05). Stricture formation was not demonstrated in either group at 3 months follow-up excretory urography (EXU). Our results demonstrate that ureteral stenting after uncomplicated URSL without dilation for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm does not appear to be necessary if AFA is used to remove fragments > or =4 mm, thereby reducing morbidity of patients and risk of re-hospitalization.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]