Preview

Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg)

Advanced search

LARGE UPPER URETERAL STONES TREATMENT CHOICE

https://doi.org/10.24884/1561-6274-2013-17-4-95-99

Abstract

THE AIM – to improve the quality of treatment of patients with large upper ureteral stones. Comparison of treatment results of 86 such patients in different ways was carried out. In 29 of them (34.11%) the treatment was started with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, in 19 (21.35%) patients – contact lithotripsy. In some cases it was enough to remove calculus, in some we had to start additional methods of treatment. The third group, 38 patients (44.54%), was performed only endovideosurgery ureterolithotomy. The article represents results of comparing the efficiency of mentioned treatment methods based on comparison of the functional state of kidneys, pyelonephritis activity, duration of hospital stay, required repeated interventions and analysis of complications, depending on the size of stone and duration of its stay in the same place. Statistically it is proved that at large upper ureteral stones endovideosurgical ureterolithotomy is more preferably than contact and extracorporeal lithotripsy. Long term stay of the stone on the same place increase complications risk and necessity of reinterventions after extracorporeal lithotripsy and contact lithotripsy can’t be recommended for treatment of this group of patients.

About the Authors

S. Kh. Al’-Shukri
Санкт-Петербургского государственного медицинского университета им. акад. И.П.Павлова
Russian Federation


A. V. Antonov
Санкт-Петербургского государственного медицинского университета им. акад. И.П.Павлова
Russian Federation


Zh. P. Avazkhanov
Санкт-Петербургского государственного медицинского университета им. акад. И.П.Павлова
Russian Federation


References

1. Тиктинский ОЛ, Александров ВП. Мочекаменная болезнь. Питер, Санкт-Петербург, 2000; 18

2. Yasui T, Iguchi M, Suzuki S, et al. Prevelence and epidimiologcal characteristics of urolitiasis in Japan: national trends between 1965 and 2005. Urology 2008 Feb; 71(2): 209-213

3. Аляев ЮГ. Мочекаменная болезнь. Современные методы диагностики и лечения. ГЭОТАР-Медиа, М., 2010; 6-26

4. Вошула ВИ. Мочекаменная болезнь. Этиотропное и патогенетическое лечение, профилактика. ВЭВЭР, Минск., 2006; 8-8, 12-18

5. Колпаков ИС. Мочекаменная болезнь. Медицина, М., 2006; 3-4, 99

6. Назаров ТХ. Современные аспекты патогенеза, диагностики и лечения мочекаменной болезни: Автореф. дисс. ... д-ра мед. наук. СПб.; 2009:16

7. Bartoletti К, Саi T, Mondaini Т et al. Epidimiology and risk factors in urolitiasis. Urol Int 2007; 79 Suppl 1:3-7

8. Глухарев АМ. Ретроперитонеоскопическая уретеролитотомия и её место в лечении уролитиаза: Автореф. дисс. ... канд.мед.наук. М., 2008; 16

9. Вощула ВИ. Мочекаменная болезнь: этиопатогенез, диагностика, лечение и метафилактика. Зималетто, М., 2010; 43

10. Комяков БК, Гулиев БГ, Алексеев МЮ. Ретроперитонеоскопическая уретеролитотомия. Эндоскоп хир 2009; (6): 32


Review

For citations:


Al’-Shukri S.Kh., Antonov A.V., Avazkhanov Zh.P. LARGE UPPER URETERAL STONES TREATMENT CHOICE. Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg). 2013;17(4):95-99. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24884/1561-6274-2013-17-4-95-99

Views: 290


ISSN 1561-6274 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9439 (Online)