STORZ MEDICAL – Literature Databases
STORZ MEDICAL – Literature Databases
Literature Databases
Literature Databases

Ferry K. et al., 2022: Endourology treatment of giant ureteral stone: Distal ureteral stone lithotripsy with nephroscope and shockpulse.

Ferry K, Ferdian V.
Urology Department, Hasan Sadikin Academic Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia.
Departement of Urology, Gunung Djati Hospital, Cirebon, West Java, Indonesia.

Abstract

There has been no article that publish the utilization of nephroscope to lithotripsy in removing giant distal ureteral stone. Here we reported a case of large multiple distal ureteral stones treated using nephroscope and litotripsy with shockpulse in a 53-year-old woman. The biggest stone measuring 40 × 35 mm and 5 × 5 mm for the smallest one. After initial cystoscopy and ureteric dilatation, nephroscope 24fr was inserted into the distal ureter. DJ stent was applied. No residual stone and complication were found. After four weeks the stent was removed and the ureteral lumen was normal in size.
Urol Case Rep. 2022 Oct 19;45:102265. doi: 10.1016/j.eucr.2022.102265. eCollection 2022 Nov. PMID: 36324317. FREE ARTICLE

0
 

Comments 1

Hans-Göran Tiselius on Monday, 06 February 2023 09:40

This report describes disintegration of a huge stone burden in the distal ureter. The article was included because shock pulses were mentioned in the Abstract. But it is not shown in the report which kind of shockwave device that was used!? Nevertheless, disintegration obviously was accomplished by local direct contact with the stone. Neither is there any information on the chemical composition of the stone.

In case of infection stone another low-invasive approach might have been possible: percutaneous catheter + stent + SWL + chemolysis with Renacidin (Hemiacidrin). But that approach is only hypothetical because there are insufficient data for such a decision.

Hans-Göran Tiselius

This report describes disintegration of a huge stone burden in the distal ureter. The article was included because shock pulses were mentioned in the Abstract. But it is not shown in the report which kind of shockwave device that was used!? Nevertheless, disintegration obviously was accomplished by local direct contact with the stone. Neither is there any information on the chemical composition of the stone. In case of infection stone another low-invasive approach might have been possible: percutaneous catheter + stent + SWL + chemolysis with Renacidin (Hemiacidrin). But that approach is only hypothetical because there are insufficient data for such a decision. Hans-Göran Tiselius
Tuesday, 12 November 2024