• Nenhum resultado encontrado

Int. braz j urol. vol.39 número5

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2018

Share "Int. braz j urol. vol.39 número5"

Copied!
2
0
0

Texto

(1)

VIDEO SECTION

756

Withdraw of the Ureteroscope Causes Fragmented Ureter

Stones to Disperse

Onder Canguven, Mustafa Boz, Mustafa Bulbul, Ahmet Selimoglu, Selami Albayrak

Urology II Clinics, Kartal Teaching and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

ABSTRACT

_____________________________________________________________________________

Introduction: Ureteroscopy has improved from the first use of ureteroscope in the 1970’s. Although the success rate increased in the last years, (1) new treatment techniques are being developed for impacted and large proximal ureter stones (2). Pneumatic lithotripsy has high efficiency with low complication rates (2). However, in case of steinstrasse and large (> 1 cm) ureter stones, fragmented small stones may obstruct insertion of a ureteroscope after initial lithotripsy. In order to triumph over this issue, multiple ureteroscopic passages and manipulations needed for extraction of these small stones by for-ceps or basket catheters. The overall incidence of stricture was found upto 14.2% when the fragments were removed with a grasping forceps or a basket (3). We present our technique to disperse small frag-mented stones in order to contact non-fragfrag-mented rest stone.

Materials and Methods: Ureteral lithotripsy was performed with an 8-9.8F semirigid ureteroscope using a pneumatic lithotripter (Swiss LithoClast, EMS, Nyon, Switzerland). The stone was fragmented into small pieces as small as 2-3 mm. by pneumatic lithotripter. Eventually, these fragmented stones interfered with vision and the lithotripter to get in touch with the rest stone. After fragmenting distal part of the large stone, the ureteroscope was pulled back out of ureter. While pulling back, the ope-rating channel was closed and irrigation fluid was flowing in order not to decrease pressure behind the stones. Simultaneously, a person tilted the operating table to about 30º in reverse Trendelenburg position. When the ureteroscope was out of ureteral orifice, the operating channel was opened and irrigation fluid was stopped. This maneuver aided decreasing pressure in the bladder more rapidly in addition to feeding tube. Stone dust and antegrade fluid flow were easily seen out of the ureteral orifice. Ureteroscope was re-inserted after 30-60 seconds. While reaching the rest of the stone, small stone dust was seen at first. Bigger stones were approximately 3-5 cm distal to the original place of the stone. When the non-fragmented rest stone appeared, there were no blocking fragmented stones. Insertion of the ureteroscope was easy and we could go on with the lithotripsy procedure.

Conclusions: In comparison to standard position, tilting and rapid decrease in pressure by pulling back the ureteroscope made gravity and negative pressure more effective.

Vol. 39 (5): 756-757, September - October, 2013

(2)

IBJU |VIDEO SECTION

757

EDITORIAL COMMENT

In the present video, the authors describe a technique to promote small ureteral stone fragment expulsion using a combination of pressure gradient and patient re-positioning (i.e. reverse trendelen-burg) at time of ureteroscopic stone pneumatic lithotripsy. Although this video does not highlight a truly novel technologic advancement in ureteral

stone management, the authors detail technical considerations that can not only optimize stone fragment expulsion but similarly improve surgical proficiency. As we embark in a new era of medical and surgical care in which where we are judged not only on surgical outcomes as healthcare pro-viders but as well on our optimized utilization of surgical resources, such original technical novel-ties are to be commended and encouraged.

Philippe E. Spiess, MD

Associate Professor, Department of GU Oncology Moffitt Cancer Center Video Section Editor, International Brazilian Journal of Urology E-mail: philippe.spiess@moffitt.org

REFERENCES

1. Gunlusoy B, Degirmenci T, Arslan M, Kozacioglu Z, Nergiz N, Minareci S, et al.: Ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy: is the location of the stone important in decision making? Analysis of 1296 patients. J Endourol. 2008; 22: 291-4.

2. Dellabella M, Milanese G, d’Anzeo G, Muzzonigro G: Rapid, economical treatment of large impacted calculi in the proxi-mal ureter with ballistic ureteral lithotripsy and occlusive,

percutaneous balloon catheter: the high pressure irrigation technique. J Urol. 2007; 178(3 Pt 1): 929-33; discussion 933-4.

3. Brito AH, Mitre AI, Srougi M: Ureteroscopic pneumatic litho-tripsy of impacted ureteral calculi. Int Braz J Urol. 2006; 32: 295-9.

ARTICLE INFO

Available at: www.brazjurol.com.br/videos/september_october_2013/ Canguven_756_757video.htm

Int Braz J Urol. 2013; 39 (Video #13): 756-7

__________________

Submitted for publication: March 20, 2013

__________________

Accepted after revision: June 15, 2013

______________________ Correspondence address:

Referências

Documentos relacionados

The ProBE trial has shown that although 85% of the patients undergoing TRUSBx descri- bed no or mild procedure associated pain during TRUSBx but within 35 days pain was an

Figure 3 - Photomicrographs of the rat prostate ventral lobe group showing the epithelium height. The epithelium height showed no difference between groups C65 and T65, but the

The reproducibility of the instrument was evaluated by the coefficient of correlation of Pear- son among the answers of the questions of the self- -administered questionnaire and

Gender, size of stone, stone location, associated anomalies, percentage of po- sitive pre-operative urine culture, history of pre- vious stone surgery, degree of hydronephrosis, site

In a stu- dy of 114 patients stratified by ideal body weight, overweight, obese and morbidly obese, there was no difference between groups and the stone-free rates were 90%

Figure 2 -The students were submitted to simulator training sessions starting at level 1 (Immersion Lap VR, San Jose, CA), including sequentially camera handling (a), peg and

Materials and Methods: Four patients, numbered in a progressive order, from one to four, with 38, 40, 48 and 51 years old and vasectomy interval of 10, 10, 25 and 11 years,

While the main goal of our study was the screening of prostate health in middle-aged males and the subjects of that age do not wish mostly to achieve additional analyses,