-
Tytuł:
-
A comparison of Stone Cone versus lidocaine jelly in the prevention of ureteral stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy.
-
Autorzy:
-
Bastawisy M; Department of Urology, Tanta University, 20 Bahr Street, Tanta, Egypt.
Gameel T
Radwan M
Ramadan A
Alkathiri M
Omar A
-
Źródło:
-
Therapeutic advances in urology [Ther Adv Urol] 2011 Oct; Vol. 3 (5), pp. 203-10.
-
Typ publikacji:
-
Journal Article
-
Język:
-
English
-
Imprint Name(s):
-
Original Publication: London : Sage Publications
-
References:
-
Eur Urol. 1994;26(3):212-5. (PMID: 7805707)
J Urol. 2002 May;167(5):1972-6. (PMID: 11956420)
Urol Res. 2005 Feb;33(1):61-4. (PMID: 15625610)
Urology. 2009 May;73(5):976-80. (PMID: 19394493)
J Endourol. 2009 Feb;23(2):249-51. (PMID: 19220084)
J Urol. 2003 Mar;169(3):881-5. (PMID: 12576805)
J Urol. 1988 Jan;139(1):116-7. (PMID: 3336074)
J Endourol. 2008 Mar;22(3):453-8. (PMID: 18355140)
J Endourol. 2005 Mar;19(2):200-3. (PMID: 15798418)
BJU Int. 2004 Aug;94(3):441-2. (PMID: 15291885)
J Endourol. 2004 Nov;18(9):862-4. (PMID: 15659920)
J Endourol. 2000 Sep;14(7):565-7. (PMID: 11030537)
Urology. 2006 Sep;68(3):505-7. (PMID: 17010727)
J Urol. 2001 May;165(5):1593-6. (PMID: 11342924)
J Urol. 2008 Sep;180(3):966-8. (PMID: 18639268)
J Urol. 2002 May;167(5):1985-8. (PMID: 11956424)
Urol Clin North Am. 2000 May;27(2):347-54. (PMID: 10778476)
J Endourol. 2008 Oct;22(10):2357-9. (PMID: 18937597)
J Endourol. 1998 Dec;12(6):513-5. (PMID: 9895254)
J Urol. 2010 Apr;183(4):1417-21. (PMID: 20171695)
J Urol. 1997 Jan;157(1):28-32. (PMID: 8976208)
J Urol. 2000 Jul;164(1):40-2. (PMID: 10840420)
BJU Int. 2010 Sep;106(5):591-2. (PMID: 20608930)
-
Contributed Indexing:
-
Keywords: Stone Cone; lidocaine Jelly; ureteroscopy and lithotripsy
-
Entry Date(s):
-
Date Created: 20111103 Date Completed: 20111110 Latest Revision: 20240320
-
Update Code:
-
20240320
-
PubMed Central ID:
-
PMC3199590
-
DOI:
-
10.1177/1756287211419551
-
PMID:
-
22046198
-
Background: Intracorporeal lithotripsy modalities and stone removal devices have been created to facilitate endoscopic management of ureteral stones. These devices, along with improved techniques, have resulted in stone-free rates greater than 95% with low morbidity. However, problems remain that preclude consistent 100% stone-free rates with endoscopic treatment of ureteral calculi. Retrograde migration during ureteroscopic procedures remains a significant problem.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the Stone Cone device and instillation of lubricating lidocaine jelly as two methods to prevent retrograde stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy.
Patients and Methods: This study included patients suffering from ureteral stones that were treated with intracorporeal lithotripsy using the pneumatic Lithoclast. These patients were divided into two groups. In group I, the Stone Cone device was used, while in group II, lidocaine jelly 2% concentration was used.
Results: This study included 40 patients with a mean age of 38.6 ± 9.3 years (20 patients in each group). There was no significant difference between the groups with regards to stone site, size or state of the upper urinary tract by excretory urography. The pneumatic Lithoclast allowed successful fragmentation of all calculi into small fragments. Upward stone migration did not occur in patients in the Stone Cone group, while in the lidocaine jelly group it occurred in three patients (15%). The operative time in the Stone Cone group ranged between 30 and 55 minutes (mean, 41.8 ± 5.3), while in the lidocaine jelly group it ranged between 40 and 71 minutes (mean, 51.4 ± 3.4), and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: The Stone Cone is safe and efficient in preventing proximal stone migration during ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy. It maintained continuous ureteral access and demonstrated a statistically significant advantage over the lidocaine jelly in terms of proximal stone migration, operative time, and the need for auxiliary procedures.
