Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
World J Urol ; 39(8): 3089-3093, 2021 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33471164

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of early second session shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) compared with laser ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of upper ureteric stones were evaluated. METHODS: From January to October 2019, 108 patients with upper ureteric stones (< 1.5 cm and ≤ 1000 Hounsfield unit (HU)) were randomized into SWL and laser URS groups. The second SWL session was performed within 48-72 h of the first session. Using plain abdominal X-ray and ultrasonography, patients were evaluated 48-72 h after the first SWL session and one week after the second and third SWL sessions or one week after URS. The procedure was considered a success when no additional procedures were needed to clear the stone. To determine the stone-free rate (SFR), noncontrast computed tomography of the urinary tract was performed three months postoperatively. RESULTS: In the SWL group, the success rates were 92.6% and 94.4% after the second and third sessions. The SFR was 96.2% in the laser URS group. The success rates were not significantly different between the second and third SWL sessions versus the laser URS (p = 0.418 and 0.660, respectively). Operative and fluoroscopy times were significantly longer in the SWL group (p = 0.001), and JJ stent insertions were needed after laser URS. CONCLUSION: Ultraslow full-power SWL treatment of patients with upper ureteric stones (< 1.5 cm and ≤ 1000 HU) with an early second session is safe and effective compared to laser URS. Patients who do not respond to early second SWL session should be shifted to another treatment modality.


Assuntos
Ondas de Choque de Alta Energia/uso terapêutico , Litotripsia , Retratamento/métodos , Cálculos Ureterais , Ureteroscopia , Feminino , Humanos , Litotripsia/efeitos adversos , Litotripsia/instrumentação , Litotripsia/métodos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Radiografia Abdominal/métodos , Tempo para o Tratamento , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/métodos , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/estatística & dados numéricos , Resultado do Tratamento , Ultrassonografia/métodos , Cálculos Ureterais/diagnóstico , Cálculos Ureterais/terapia , Ureteroscopia/efeitos adversos , Ureteroscopia/métodos
2.
Int J Urol ; 27(10): 916-921, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32851713

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To compare percutaneous nephrostomy tube versus JJ stent as an initial urinary drainage procedure in kidney stone patients presenting with acute kidney injury. METHODS: Between January 2017 and January 2019, 143 patients with acute kidney injury secondary to obstructive kidney stone were prospectively randomized into the percutaneous nephrostomy tube group (71 patients) and JJ stent group (72 patients) at Beni-Suef University Hospital, Beni-Suef, Egypt. Exclusion criteria included candidates for acute dialysis, fever (>38°C), pyonephrosis, pregnancy and uncontrolled coagulopathy. The period required for serum creatinine normalization, failure of insertion, operative and fluoroscopy time were recorded. Definitive stone management for proximal ureteral stones >1.5 cm consisted of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the percutaneous nephrostomy group and ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for the JJ stent group. For stone size <1.5 cm, ureteroscopy or shockwave lithotripsy was carried out for both groups. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy was carried out for renal stones >2 cm, and shockwave lithotripsy for stones <2 cm. Distal and mid ureteral stones were treated by ureteroscopy. RESULTS: The percutaneous nephrostomy group had shorter operative time (P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the recovery period for normalization of serum creatinine between both groups (P = 0.120). Procedural failure, ureteric mucosal injury and perforations increased in the case of male sex, stone size >1.5 cm and upper ureteric stones in the JJ stent group. Procedural failure, pelvic perforations and intraoperative bleeding increased in case of male sex, mild hydronephrosis and stone size >2.5 cm in the percutaneous nephrostomy group. Suprapubic pain, urethral pain and lower urinary tract symptoms were significant in the JJ stent group. The presence of a JJ stent directed us toward ureteroscopy (P = 0.002) and the presence of a percutaneous nephrostomy directed us toward percutaneous nephrolithotomy (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous nephrostomy facilitates subsequent percutaneous nephrolithotomy, especially when carried out by a urologist, and it has a higher insertion success rate, a shorter operative time and a lesser incidence of postoperative urinary tract infection than a JJ stent. A JJ stent facilitates subsequent ureteroscopy, but operative complications can increase in the case of proximal ureteral stones >1.5 cm.


Assuntos
Injúria Renal Aguda , Cálculos Renais , Nefrostomia Percutânea , Injúria Renal Aguda/etiologia , Injúria Renal Aguda/terapia , Drenagem , Humanos , Cálculos Renais/complicações , Cálculos Renais/diagnóstico por imagem , Cálculos Renais/cirurgia , Masculino , Nefrostomia Percutânea/efeitos adversos , Estudos Prospectivos , Stents/efeitos adversos , Resultado do Tratamento , Ureteroscopia/efeitos adversos
3.
Prostate ; 79(11): 1221-1225, 2019 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31189024

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to determine the factors predicting the outcome of intraprostatic injection of Botulinum Toxin-A (BTX-A) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-induced lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and to evaluate its efficacy and safety. METHODS: Between September 2016 and May 2018, 45 Egyptian patients, with BPH-induced LUTS were included; the indication was a failure of medical treatment, unfit, or refusing surgical intervention. Measurements of prostate size by TRUS, total PSA level before and 12 weeks after injection. IPSS, uroflow, and postvoiding residual urine (PVR) were measured before injection, 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks postinjection. 100 U BTX-A vial was diluted with 10 mL of saline then injected into the transition zone at base and midzone of the prostate by TRUS. RESULTS: The mean patients' age was 64.4 ± 6.6 years. Mean baseline IPSS 24.06 decreased to 18.75 at 2 weeks and progressively decreased to 16.37 at 12 weeks (P < 0.001), Q max of 9.08 mL/s. increased to 10.44 at 2 weeks and 11.44 at 12 weeks (P < 0.001), mean prostate volume was 67.44cc; decreased to 66.06cc (P < 0.001) at 12 weeks and mean residual urine was 82.62 mL and decreased to 57.66 mL at 12 weeks. DISCUSSION: Intraprostatic injection of BTX-A as modality treatment of LUTS/BPH significantly improve IPSS, Q max , PVR, and decrease prostate volume. We can suspect better results with this line of treatment in patients with IPSS ≤ 22 and Q max ≤ 10 mL/min and prostate volume ≤ 56.5cc.


Assuntos
Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/uso terapêutico , Sintomas do Trato Urinário Inferior/tratamento farmacológico , Próstata/efeitos dos fármacos , Hiperplasia Prostática/complicações , Agentes Urológicos/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Sintomas do Trato Urinário Inferior/etiologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Qualidade de Vida , Resultado do Tratamento , Agentes Urológicos/administração & dosagem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA