Comparison of pneumatic and laser lithotripsy in the treatment of pediatric ureteral stones

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorAtar, Murat
dc.contributor.authorBodakci, Mehmet Nuri
dc.contributor.authorSancaktutar, Ahmet Ali
dc.contributor.authorPenbegül, Necmettin
dc.contributor.authorSoylemez, Haluk
dc.contributor.authorBozkurt, Yasar
dc.contributor.authorHatipoglu, Namik Kemal
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T16:15:21Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T16:15:21Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of pneumatic and holmium: YAG laser lithotripters in the treatment of pediatric ureterolithiasis. Patients and methods: Medical records of patients treated using pneumatic (PL) (n = 29) or laser (LL) (n = 35) lithotripter between 2009 and 2011 were retrospectively analysed. The patients were evaluated with respect to age, gender, stone size, complications, and stone-free rates 1 month after the operation. Results: For the PL and LL groups, mean ages (8.8 +/- 3.4 and 8.3 +/- 3.5 years), male/ female ratios (19:10 and 22:13) and stone locations were similar (p > 0.05). Mean stone sizes were 55.6 mm(2) and 47.6 mm(2) in the PL and LL group, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.850). Mean operative times were 20.5 min in the PL group and 25.2 min in the LL group, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.020). Stone-free rates 1 month after intervention were 79% in the PL group and 97% in the LL group (p = 0.022). Stone migration was detected in the PL group (n = 6) and in the LL group (n = 1). No major complication was found in either group. Conclusion: In the ureteroscopic treatment of pediatric ureterolithiasis, both pneumatic and laser lithotripters are effective and successful. However, laser lithotripsy has a higher stone-free rate and lower complication rate. (C) 2012 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.03.004
dc.identifier.endpage312en_US
dc.identifier.issn1477-5131
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid22494964
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84877575097
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage308en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.03.004
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/15765
dc.identifier.volume9en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000319498000018
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Sci Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Pediatric Urology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectUreteroscopyen_US
dc.subjectPneumatic Lithotripsyen_US
dc.subjectLaser Lithotripsyen_US
dc.titleComparison of pneumatic and laser lithotripsy in the treatment of pediatric ureteral stonesen_US
dc.titleComparison of pneumatic and laser lithotripsy in the treatment of pediatric ureteral stones
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu