Urology Research & Practice
Editorial

The need for additional equipment after ESWL in ureteroscopic lithotripsy

1.

Clinic of Urology, Muş State Hospital, Muş

2.

Department of 2nd Urology, Ministry of Health, Education and Research Hospital of Göztepe, İstanbul

3.

Clinic of Urology, Muş State Hospital, Muş

Urol Res Pract 2011; 37: 307-310
DOI: 10.5152/tud.2011.059
Read: 1505 Downloads: 1100 Published: 25 July 2019

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated our results with ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) in patients with failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy therapy (ESWL) and examined the effect of previous ESWL on the use of tools during URS, operating time, and outcome.

Materials and methods: URS performed in two centers between 2008 and 2011 was reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the history of previous ESWL: 1) patients who underwent ESWL previously (n=39) and 2) no previous ESWL (n=116). 

Results: The demographic data were similar in both groups. The use of accessory tools and treatment failure was statistically higher in Group 1. The operating time was longer in Group 1. The need for re-operation, balloon dilatation, and ureteral catheter was similar in the two groups. However, the use of accessory equipment was increased by 56% in those with a previous ESWL. Balloon dilatation was required in 17.9% of the patients in Group 1. 

Conclusion: URS is the main treatment modality after the failure of ESWL. In patients with a history of ESWL, the need for accessory equipment is increased. 

Files
EISSN 2980-1478