Urology Research & Practice
Original Article

Clinical comparison of two products during ureterorenoscopy to prevent retropulsion

1.

Ankara Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, 2. Üroloji Kliniği, Ankara

2.

Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Biyoistatistik Anabilim Dalı, Ankara

Urol Res Pract 2010; 36: 138-142
Read: 1219 Downloads: 1125 Published: 25 July 2019

Abstract

Objective: It was aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of Stone Cone™ and NTrap™ for preventing retropulsion in ureterorenoscopic stone surgery.

Materials and methods: Stone Cone™ or NTrap™ were used randomly in patients who were operated with uretroscopic method for ureter stone in our clinic between June 2008-August 2009. Routine procedures that are used in ureterorenoscopic stone surgery were applied to all patients. The patients who had opaque, upper ureteral stones were included in this study. Stone Cone™ catheter was used in 72 patients, NTrap™ catheter was used in 57 patients. The existence of a stone that was larger or equal to 4 mm and/or migrated proximally in the urinary system radiograpy at postoperative 24 hours were accepted as failure. 

Results: Catheter couldn’t be passed to the proximal of the stone in 4 (%5.6) of 72 cases with Stone Cone™ and in 8 (%14) of 54 cases with NTrap™. Proximal retropulsion of the stone was seen in 7 (%10.3) of 68 cases and in 2 (%4.1) of 49 cases that Stone Cone™ and NTrap™ could be used respectively. According to these two criteria, Stone Cone™ was successful in 61 (%84.7) of 72 cases, NTrap™ was successful in 47 (%82.4) of 57 cases. There was no statistically significant difference between two products in term of the success rates (p>0.05).

Conclusion: Both of these products are the catheters that can be used safely in ureterorenoscopic surgery and increase the surgery success significantly. No statistically significant difference was found between Stone Cone™ and NTrap™ in terms of clinical efficacy.

Files
EISSN 2980-1478