Comparison of Laser Lithotripsy and Pneumatic Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Ureteral Stones

• Main Authors: Faruk Kuyucu, Güçlü Gürlen, Ferhat Ortoğlu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Galenos Yayinevi 2013-09-01
• Series: Haseki Tıp Bülteni
• Subjects: Pneumatic lithotripsy; laser lithotripsy; ureteral stones
• Online Access: http://www.hasekidergisi.com/article_4693/Comparison-Of-Laser-Lithotripsy-And-Pneumatic-Lithotripsy-In-The-Treatment-Of-Ureteral-Stones
• ISSN: 1302-0072; 2147-2688

Aim: The comparison of the our results of laser lithotripsy (LL) and pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) for the treatment of ureteral stones. Methods: A total of 150 consequent patients with ureteral stones, who have been treated by ureteroscopy between June 2011 and October 2012, were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were divided into two main groups according to the treatment method, and each group were divided into three subgroups as upper, middle and lower ureteric stones. The groups and subgroups were compared for use of double-J stent, duration of operation, complications, and stone-free rate. Results: While 62 patients were treated with PL, the remaining 88 patients were treated with LL. For PL group, stone-free rate, double-J stent placement, hematuria and minor complication rates were 83%, 61.1%, 69.3% and 41.9%, respectively; for the LL group, these parameters were 93.1%, 31.8%, 43.1% and 11.3%, respectively. There were no major complications in both groups. The duration of operation in PL and LL groups were 57.9 min and 49.3 min, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two main groups as well as the subgroups for stone-free rates. Hematuria, minor complications and double-J stent placement rates were statistically higher in PLgroup. Conclusion: There was no difference in treatment success rates beetween LL and PL. LL was superior to PL in terms of minor complications, hematuria, double-J stent placement rates and duration of operation. (The Medical Bulletin of Haseki 2013; 51: 107-11)