Research Information System
Turk Uroloji Dergisi, vol.33, no.4, pp.462-467, 2007 (Scopus, TRDizin)
Introduction: Although many devices used for intracorporeal lithotripsy have proved to be very safe and efficient, the number of comparative in-vivo prospective studies regarding their use in ureteroseopy is still inadequate. There is also no prospective study in the literature about the use of ultrasonic lithotrite in ureteral stones comparing its effectiveness with other lithotrites. In this study, the effectiveness of pneumatic (PL) and ultrasonic (UL) lithotrites with ureteroscopy were prospectively compared in the treatment of ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: A total of 124 patients with ureteral stones were randomized into two groups for ureteroscopic management. In Group 1 (4=68) and Group 2 (n=56), PL and UL were used respectively. Results were evaluated one month later by plain film and intravenous urography. Results: Mean stone area was 46.1±30.1 mm2 for Group 1, and 54.8±36.2 mm2 for Group 2 (p>0.05). Of the patients, 24 (19.4%) and 100 (80.6%) were found to have a stone in the proximal and distal ureter, respectively. Stone free rates in Group 1 and Group 2 were 84.6% and 55.5% for proximal ureter stones (p=0.015), 94.5% and 80% for distal ureter stones (p=0.033), respectively. In 14 cases, stones were unable to disintegrate in Group 2. Overall stone free rate was 92.6% in Group 1 and 75% in Group 2 (p=0.007). The number of stones and stone composition had no impact on stone free rates. Operative time and complication rates were similar between two groups. Conclusion: PL is more effective than UL in fragmentation and clearance of ureteral stones with ureteroscopy.