Search

Background: In our study, we aimed to compare the efficiency and reliability of using semirigid ureteroscopy (S-URS) and flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) in the treatment of patients with stones smaller than 2 cm in isolated renal pelvis. Materials and Methods: The data of 45 patients who underwent ureteroscopic stone treatment for isolated renal pelvis stones smaller than 2 cm were evaluated retrospectively. S-URS was routinely applied to all patients. If the stones can be accessed in the renal pelvis with S-URS, direct treatment with holmium laser was applied. If the stone was not accessible, F-URS was made. Groups were compared in terms of stone-free rates, operation times, hemoglobin reduction, and complications. Results: S-URS was performed in 24 (53.3%) patients and F-URS in 21 (46.7%) patients. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, degree of hydronephrosis, mean stone size and stone side. Mean operation time was 64.62 ± 9.34 minutes in the S-URS group and 96.43 ± 14.26 minutes in the F-URS group (p=0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of postoperative complications (p = 0.548). In the postoperative 1st day and 1st month follow-up, stone-free rates were 79.2% and 83.3% in the S-URS group, and 80.9% and 85.7% in the F-URS group, respectively (p = 0.768 and p = 0.574). Conclusions: We observed that the use of S-URS and F-URS were very successful and safe methods in kidney stones smaller than 2 cm. S-URS is a safe treatment method that can be applied if the stone in the renal pelvis can be reached without any problem, especially in selected cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Our a im i s t o e valuate t he t reatment r esults o f c hildren w ho u nderwent E SWL f or urolithiasis Materials and Methods: Records of children who underwent ESWL between October 2018 and October 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups according to success and compared in terms of age, gender, stone size, stone location, complications, and additional interventions. Results: Of the 50 cases, 34(68%) were boys and 16(32%) were girls. The mean age was 8.8 ± 5.0 years. 36 of the stones were located in the kidney and 14 were in the proximal ureter. The average stone size was 9.4±1.8 mm in the successful ESWL group and 13.8±3.2 mm in the unsuccessful group (p <0.05). While the success was 90% for stones less than 10 mm, it was found to be 56.7% for stones over 10 mm (p <0.05). T otal success w as 70%. T here w as no significant correlation between age, gender, side and localization of stones and ESWL success (p> 0.05). Conclusion: ESWL is an effective and safe treatment method for children with urolithiasis. Stone size is an important factor affecting success. Especially for stones ≥10 mm, there is a need for studies that will provide the maximum benefit per session and reveal the predictions that can prevent an unsuccessful application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]