Objective: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of balloon dilatation in ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of distal ureteral stones.
Material and Methods: The retrospective data of patients who underwent URS for distal ureter stones between January 2008 and June 2018 were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups according the need of balloon dilatation. Group 1 was consisted of balloon dilatation (-) patients and Group 2 was consisted of balloon dilatation (+) patients. These two groups were compared in terms of demographic of patients, stone characte- ristics, operation outcomes and complications.
Results: Group 1 was consisted of 359 (70.4%) male and 151 (29.6%) female; group 2 was consisted of 32 (80%) male and 8 (20%) fe- male patients (p=0.197). The mean age of patients was 43.3±14.3 years in group 1 and 44.2±14.9 years in group 2 (p=0.704). Operation time was significantly higher in group 2 (32.8±20.5 min vs 40.1±16.0; p=0.029). Although stone free rate was significantly higher in group 1 (%98.6 vs %90.0; p=0.017); the complication rate was similar betwe- en groups (%3.2 vs %2.5; p=0.787).
Conclusions: The same session balloon dila- tation for ureteral structures in URS for the tre- atment of distal ureteral stones seems safe and cost-effective method. Although this procedure may lead to elongation in operation times and decrease the stone free rates; it does not affect the complication rates and prevents patients from needing a new operation for same stone. Further randomized and prospective studies are needed for long term outcomes of this procedure.
Keywords: ureteral balloon dilatation, urete- ral stone, ureteral stone treatment, ureteroscopy
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of balloon dilatation in ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of distal ureteral stones.
Material and Methods: The retrospective data of patients who underwent URS for distal ureter stones between January 2008 and June 2018 were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups according the need of balloon dilatation. Group 1 was consisted of balloon dilatation (-) patients and Group 2 was consisted of balloon dilatation (+) patients. These two groups were compared in terms of demographic of patients, stone characte- ristics, operation outcomes and complications.
Results: Group 1 was consisted of 359 (70.4%) male and 151 (29.6%) female; group 2 was consisted of 32 (80%) male and 8 (20%) fe- male patients (p=0.197). The mean age of patients was 43.3±14.3 years in group 1 and 44.2±14.9 years in group 2 (p=0.704). Operation time was significantly higher in group 2 (32.8±20.5 min vs 40.1±16.0; p=0.029). Although stone free rate was significantly higher in group 1 (%98.6 vs %90.0; p=0.017); the complication rate was similar betwe- en groups (%3.2 vs %2.5; p=0.787).
Conclusions: The same session balloon dila- tation for ureteral structures in URS for the tre- atment of distal ureteral stones seems safe and cost-effective method. Although this procedure may lead to elongation in operation times and decrease the stone free rates; it does not affect the complication rates and prevents patients from needing a new operation for same stone. Further randomized and prospective studies are needed for long term outcomes of this procedure.
Keywords: ureteral balloon dilatation, urete- ral stone, ureteral stone treatment, ureteroscopy