WHICH TREATMENT METHOD SHOULD BE USED IN PREGNANT PATIENTS WITH URETERAL CALCULI? TWO CENTER COMPARATIVE STUDY

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorBayar, Goksel
dc.contributor.authorBozkurt, Yasar
dc.contributor.authorAcinikli, Huseyin
dc.contributor.authorDagguli, Mansur
dc.contributor.authorCakmak, Sedat
dc.contributor.authorBodakci, Mehmet Nuri
dc.contributor.authorHatipoglu, Namik Kemal
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T17:47:52Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T17:47:52Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare ureterolithotripsy and inserting only ureteral-j stent in terms of efficiency safety and patient comfort in treatment of ureteral calculi in pregnant patients. METHODS: Seventy patients who developed hydronephrosis due to ureteral calculi during pregnancy and on whom endoscopic intervention was performed were included in the study In a center, the stones were broken up by ureteroscopy, and then ureteral stents (JJ) were placed if needed. In the other center, nothing was performed on the stones, and only ureteral stents (JJ) was placed. For the statistical analysis, Pearson's chisquared test and the Mann-Whitney U tests were used and the significance level was determined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 26.2 years (18-39) and the average gestational week was 23.4 weeks (8-36). While no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the frequency of complications (p=0.381) and post-operative pyelonephritis (p=0.2), the need for additional intervention in the group on whom ureteroscopy was performed was found to be less (9.7% vs. 31%; p=0.032). Moderate or severe LUTS or flank pain during the period between the procedure and the birth was found to be significantly less in the group in which ureterolithotripsy was performed (14% vs. 55%; p=0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Ureterolithotripsy is a safe and more comfortable procedure than only ureteral double-j insertion on pregnant patients with ureterolithiasis.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage440en_US
dc.identifier.issn0004-0614
dc.identifier.issn1576-8260
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.pmid26033764
dc.identifier.startpage435en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/22785
dc.identifier.volume68en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000362382000006
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherIniestares, S.A.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofArchivos Espanoles De Urologia
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectUreteral Stoneen_US
dc.subjectPregnancyen_US
dc.subjectUreterolithotripsyen_US
dc.subjectUreteral Stenten_US
dc.titleWHICH TREATMENT METHOD SHOULD BE USED IN PREGNANT PATIENTS WITH URETERAL CALCULI? TWO CENTER COMPARATIVE STUDYen_US
dc.titleWHICH TREATMENT METHOD SHOULD BE USED IN PREGNANT PATIENTS WITH URETERAL CALCULI? TWO CENTER COMPARATIVE STUDY
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu