RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Urothelial encrusted pyelo-ureteritis disease is an infrequent condition and there is no unified surgical treatment and reference standard to consult. We have used a minimally invasive endoscopic method to treat three such cases, which yielded excellent results. CASE SUMMARY: The first case was a 45-year-old man who had unilateral ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) atresia and contralateral stenosis and was treated by double endoscopic surgery using an anterograde percutaneous nephroscope coupled with a rigid retrograde ureteroscope. The second case was a 12-year-old boy who received a percutaneous nephroscopy on one side and a percutaneous nephroscopy with a rigid ureteroscope on the other side due to the presence of bilateral UPJ stenosis. The third case was a 32-year-old woman with bilateral lower ureteral stricture treated using a rigid retrograde ureteroscope. Endoscopic surgeries were successfully performed on all the three patients. Varying degrees of encrustation and erosion of the urothelium were observed during the operation. The calcified layer composition analysis showed magnesium ammonium phosphate or carbonate apatite. Two patients achieved a good prognosis. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive endoscopic treatment for urothelial encrusted pyelo-ureteritis disease can yield better results.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is used to treat choledocholithiasis. Flexible choledochoscopy is usually performed; however, this instrument is fragile and liable to breakage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected and reviewed retrospectively from a prospectively maintained database. All cases of attempted LCBDE with the rigid ureteroscope at the institution since January 2014 were included. Demographic characteristics, preoperative attempted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), size of the bile duct, findings at laparoscopy, use of drain or T-tube, conversions, and morbidity or mortality were documented. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients were identified. The median age was 51 years (32-71). The male to female ratio was 1:5. Twenty-eight patients had failed ductal clearance at ERCP (75.7%). The mean common bile duct (CBD) diameter was 11.4 mm (10-13.5). There were five conversions. Cirrhosis in 2 patients, bleeding in 1 patient, impacted stone in 1, and equipment failure in 1. T-tubes were placed in 5% of cases. N = 8 (21.6%) of the patients had a Mirizzi syndrome. Average hospital stay was 4 days (3-7). Two patients had complications postoperatively-bleeding and collections. CONCLUSIONS: LCBDE using the rigid ureteroscope is feasible. It can be performed with acceptable morbidity. Use of the rigid ureteroscope represents a good alternative to the flexible choledochoscope with high duct clearance rates. One disadvantage is cirrhosis where the scope may not be negotiated into the CBD due to a stiff liver. It is a viable option when preoperative ERCP has failed to clear the CBD.
Assuntos
Coledocolitíase/cirurgia , Ducto Colédoco/cirurgia , Laparoscopia/instrumentação , Adulto , Idoso , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/estatística & dados numéricos , Drenagem , Falha de Equipamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Laparoscopia/efeitos adversos , Laparoscopia/métodos , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , UreteroscópiosRESUMO
INTRODUCCIÓN: La ureterolitectomía endoscópica (URS) es una técnica validada para el manejo de cálculos ureterales, ya que tiene alto poder resolutivo y es poco invasiva. El desarrollo de instrumentos flexibles ha facilitado el manejo endoscópico de los cálculos en uréter medio y proximal. El objetivo de este trabajo es describir la experiencia de nuestro centro en URS. Material y metodos: Análisis retrospectivo de las URS realizadas en nuestro centro entre Diciembre 2009 y Mayo 2012. Se consignaron las características del cálculo, el método de fragmentación, la efectividad del procedimiento y las complicaciones. Se utilizaron los ureteroscopios semirrígido Wolf (6,0-9,5 Fr) y flexible Karl Storz Flex X2. Resultados: Se revisaron 102 ureteroscopías, 85 con ureteroscopio semirrígido y 17 con flexible. Los cálculos tuvieron un promedio de 5,7 mm y 642 UH. El 89,4 por ciento de los cálculos resueltos mediante URS semirrígida se localizaban en uréter distal y 52,9 por ciento de los resueltos con URS flexible en uréter proximal. Se realizó litotripsia con láser Holmium en un 25,9 por ciento y 70,6 por ciento de los casos con URS semirrígida y flexible, respectivamente. Se utilizó litotripsia pneumática en un 4,7 por ciento de los casos de URS semirrígida. En URS semirrígida y flexible, la tasa de stone-free + fragmentos < 2 mm fue de 89,4 por ciento y 88,2 por ciento, respectivamente. Sólo hubo una complicación en nuestra serie (infección urinaria febril en 1 caso con URS flexible). La mediana de hospitalización fue de 1 día (rango 1-5 días). Conclusion: Nuestros resultados reafirman a la URS como una técnica eficaz, segura y poco invasiva para el tratamiento de los cálculos ureterales.
INTRODUCTION: The endoscopic ureterolithotomy (URS) is a validated technique for the management of ureteral calculi, which is highly resolutive and minimally invasive. The development of flexible instruments has facilitated the endoscopic management of stones in the mid and proximal segments of the ureter. The aim of this paper is to describe the experience of our center in endoscopic ureterolithotomy. Material and methods: Retrospective analysis of URS performed at our center between December 2009 and May 2012. We recorded the characteristics of the stones, the fragmentation method, the effectiveness of the procedure and complications. The Wolf semi-rigid (6.0 to 9.5 Fr) and the flexible Karl Storz Flex X2 ureteroscopes were used. RESULTS: We reviewed 102 URS, 85 with semi-rigid and 17 with flexible ureteroscope. The calculi were 5.7 mm and 642 HU in average. 89.4 percent of the stones treated with a semi-rigid URS were localized in the distal ureter and 52.9 percent of the calculi treated with a flexible URS were in the proximal ureter. Holmium laser lithotripsy was performed in 25.9 percent and 70.6 percent of the cases of semi-rigid and flexible URS, respectively. Pneumatic lithotripsy was used in 4.7 percent of the semi-rigid URS. In semi-rigid and flexible URS, the rate of stone-free + fragments < 2 mm was 89.4 percent and 88.2 percent, respectively. There was only one complication in our series (febrile urinary tract infection in 1 case of flexible URS). The median length of stay was 1 day (range 1-5 days). CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that URS is an effective, safe and minimally invasive treatment for ureteral calculi.