Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorSahin, Selcuk
dc.contributor.authorResorlu, Berkan
dc.contributor.authorEksi, Mithat
dc.contributor.authorAras, Bekir
dc.contributor.authorAtar, Arda
dc.contributor.authorTugcu, Volkan
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T13:33:18Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T13:33:18Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn1682-024X
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.323.9938
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/13348
dc.descriptionaras, bekir/0000-0002-7020-8830en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000377706400010en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 27375691en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) with transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TPLU) in cases of obstructive pyelonephritis secondary to large proximal ureteral stones. Methods: A series of 42 patients presenting with obstructive pyelonephritis due to proximal ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm were included from April 2006 to February 2015 in this comparative study. After drainage of pyonephrosis and resolution of sepsis, 22 patients treated with TPLU (Group I), and 20 patients were treated with F-URS (Group II). Preoperative patient and stone characteristics, procedure-related parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed for each group. Results: It was seen that both methods were effective in the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. However TPLU provided a higher stone-free rate (100% vs 80%. p=0.043) and lower retreatment rate. There was no difference between the groups for the operative time and complication rate. On the other hand, patients treated with F-URS had less postoperative pain (p=0.008), a shorter hospital stay (p<0.001) and a faster return to daily activities (p<0.001). Conclusions: The results of our study show that both F-URS and TPLU are safe and effective surgical procedures for treatment of large proximal ureteral stones after controlling obstructive pyelonephritis. However, TPLU has a higher stone-free rate with comparable operating time and complication rate as compared to F-URS. On the other hand F-URS has the advantages of less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay and faster return to daily activities.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherProfessional Medical Publicationsen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.12669/pjms.323.9938en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectFlexible ureteroscopyen_US
dc.subjectLaparoscopic ureterolithotomyen_US
dc.subjectProximal ureteral stoneen_US
dc.subjectObstructive pyelonephritisen_US
dc.subjectTransperitonealen_US
dc.titleFlexible ureteroscopy versus laparoscopy for the treatment of patients who initially presented with obstructive pyelonephritisen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume32en_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage570en_US
dc.identifier.endpage574en_US
dc.relation.journalPakistan Journal of Medical Sciencesen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster