Academic Journals Database
Disseminating quality controlled scientific knowledge

Comparison between the Holmium Laser (Made in Iran) and Pneumatic Lithotripsy in Patients Suffering from Upper Ureteral Stone between 1-2cm

ADD TO MY LIST
 
Author(s): Mohammad Reza Razaghi | Abdollah Razi

Journal: Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences
ISSN 2008-9783

Volume: 2;
Issue: 4;
Start page: 144;
Date: 2012;
Original page

Keywords: success rate | ureteral stone | lithotripsy

ABSTRACT
Introduction: The aim of this study is to compare holmium laser (LL) with pneumatic lithoclast (PL) in patients with upper ureteral stones and their ability to destruct the stones and making the patient stone free. We also compare the duration of these procedures and their complications, such as urosepsis, perforation, and pushing the stone backward. Methods: This has been a clinical randomized trail study in 26 patients with upper ureteral stone more than 1 cm. Patients were divided into 2 randomized groups, each treated with one of the following approaches: pneumatic lithoclast(14 patients), or holmium laser(12 patients). The goal of lithotripsy was to break the stone into particles less than 3 mm. IVP (Intravenous Pyelogram) was performed 4 weeks after. Results: The immediate stone free rate was 100% in LL group and 42.9% in PL group (P=0.001). Stone pushing back was 0% in LL group and 57.1% in PL group. Complications such as a perforation, or urosepsis, or bleeding were not seen in any of these groups. Fever more than 38º C was observed in 1.8% in LL, and 3.8% in PL group (p=0.56). After 4 weeks no complication was seen in IVP. Conclusion: According to our experience, for upper ureteral stones larger than 1 cm, lithotripsy with holmium laser is preferred approach with high success rate and low complication.             Keywords: success rate; ureteral stone; lithotripsy
Why do you need a reservation system?      Save time & money - Smart Internet Solutions