MP27-14 THE USING OF STENT ACCORDING TO STONE BURDEN IN PELVIS RENALIS CALCULI TREATED WITH ESWL: USE IT OR NOT ?

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Therapy III1 Apr 2014MP27-14 THE USING OF STENT ACCORDING TO STONE BURDEN IN PELVIS RENALIS CALCULI TREATED WITH ESWL: USE IT OR NOT ? Bulent Onal, Cagatay Dogan, Burak Ozkan, Nejat Tansu, Gulce Ecem Can, and Ahmet Erozenci Bulent OnalBulent Onal More articles by this author , Cagatay DoganCagatay Dogan More articles by this author , Burak OzkanBurak Ozkan More articles by this author , Nejat TansuNejat Tansu More articles by this author , Gulce Ecem CanGulce Ecem Can More articles by this author , and Ahmet ErozenciAhmet Erozenci More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.377AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES In this study our purpose is to determine the efficiency of ureteral stent usage in pelvis renalis stones for ESWL treatment. Also we compare the results and complications of stented and non-stented patients METHODS Between 1992 and 2008, 1361 patients with pelvis renalis stones were included to the study. Stone load was recorded by measuring the stone area on the plain film in square centimeters (cm2) and patients were subdivided into 3 groups according to stone burden as stones equal or smaller than 1 cm2 (group 1), 1.1 to 2 cm2 (group 2) and bigger than 2 cm2 (group 3). Also we formed 2 groups according to ureteral stent usage before ESWL treatment as stented and non-stented group. Statistical analysis was performed by chi-square, Fisher’s exact and Mann-Whitney U tests. The efficiency of treatment among the groups was determined by the effectiveness quotient (EQ) that was calculated with a special formula. RESULTS There were 514 patients in group 1, 530 patients in group 2 and 317 patients in group 3 according to their stone sizes. We used ureteral stents as an auxillary procedure in 30 patients (%6) for group 1, in 44 patients (8%) for group 2 and in 104 patients (%33) for group 3. There were no statistically significance between stented and non-stented subgroups according steinstrasse rates in all groups (group1,2,3). Stone-free rates of non-stented subgroups were statistically significance higher than stented subgroups in group2 and group3. The EQ was calculated as %62, %33 and %70 respectively in non-stented,stented and totally for group1. This ratio calculated as %58, %25 and %63 for group2 and %62, %26 and %47 for group 3. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that usage of a ureteral stent may not contribute to a higher rate of stone free for the treatment of pelvis renalis stones with ESWL. Although ureteral stent usage is before ESWL in selected patients necessary, steinstrasse rates were not difference in non-stented subgroups and stented subgroups. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e279 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Bulent Onal More articles by this author Cagatay Dogan More articles by this author Burak Ozkan More articles by this author Nejat Tansu More articles by this author Gulce Ecem Can More articles by this author Ahmet Erozenci More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...