Transurethral contact ureteral lithotripsy in a gaseous (CO 2) medium
- Authors: Glybochko P.V1, Aljaev J.G1, Rapoport L.M1, Carichenko D.G1, Arzumanjan E.G1
-
Affiliations:
- Research Institute of Uronephrology and Human Reproductive Health of Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
- Issue: No 2 (2015)
- Pages: 56-59
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journals.eco-vector.com/1728-2985/article/view/280632
- ID: 280632
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Abstract
The paper describes for the first time the method of contact ureteral lithotripsy in gaseous (CO 2) medium. It presents the results of a comparative study of urolithiasis patients treated with this treatment modality (study group, n=30) and with traditional contact ureteral lithotripsy in liquid medium (control group, n=30). The incidence of retrograde migration of calculus in the kidney in the study group was 0%, while it was 16.6% in the control group. Acute or exacerbation of chronic pyelonephritis was diagnosed in only 3 (10%) patients in the control group. The suggested method of contact ureteral lithotripsy is safe and provides several advantages over traditional contact ureteral lithotripsy in a fluid medium, such as: physiologic validity, absence of calculus hypermobility (increased mobility), improved visualization during surgery and high cost effectiveness.
Full Text
About the authors
P. V Glybochko
Research Institute of Uronephrology and Human Reproductive Health of Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Ju. G Aljaev
Research Institute of Uronephrology and Human Reproductive Health of Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
L. M Rapoport
Research Institute of Uronephrology and Human Reproductive Health of Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
D. G Carichenko
Research Institute of Uronephrology and Human Reproductive Health of Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
E. G Arzumanjan
Research Institute of Uronephrology and Human Reproductive Health of Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Email: xachulya@mail.ru
References
- Аляев Ю.Г., Руденко В.И., Газимиев М.-С.А. Мочекаменная болезнь, актуальные вопросы диагностики и выбора метода лечения. М., 2006. С. 1.
- Фомкин Р.Н. Клинико-экспериментальное обоснование выбора оптимального способа контактной пневматической уретеролитотрипсии. Дисс. канд. мед. наук. Саратов, 2008.
- Национальное руководство по урологии. Под ред. Н.А. Лопаткина. М., 2009. С. 627.
- Sofer M., Grunstein A., KerenPaz G.,Ben Chaim J., Chen J., Matzkin H. Epidemiological characteristics and ureteroscopic treatment of large ureteral stones. Eur. Urol. Suppl. 2007;6(2):270.
- Miller O.F., Kane C.J. Time to stone passage for observed ureteral calculi: a guide for patient education. J. Urol. 1999;162:688-690.
- Аляев Ю.Г., Рапопорт Л.М., Цариченко Д.Г., Аксенов А.В., Сорокин Н.И. Интра- и послеоперационные осложнения эндоскопических операций на мочеточнике. Российские медицинские вести. 2012;17(1):53-56.
- Голубев А.А. Характерные изменения регуляции сердечного ритма в ходе выполнения лапароскопических вмешательств с использованием карбоксиперитонеума. Эндоскоп. хир. 2001;2:45-48.
- Corwin C.L. Pneumoperitoneum. In: The SAGES manual. Fundamentals of Laparoscopy and GI Endoscopy. Soper N.J., Scott-Conner C.E.H., eds. New York: Springer; 1999. Vol. 4. P. 372-387.
- Mann C., Boccara G., Grevy V., Navarro F., Fabre J.M., Colson P. Argon pneumoperitoneum is more dangerous than CO2 pneumoperitoneum during venous gas embolism. Anesth. Analg. 1997;85(6):1367-1371.
- McMahon A.J. Helium pneumoperitoneum for laparosrapic cholecystectomy: ventilatory and blood gas changes. Br. J. Surg. 1994;81:1033-1036.
- Кучера Я. Хирургия гидронефроза и уретерогидронефроза. Прага: Гос. изд. мед. лит., 1963. 222 с.
- Бакунц С.А. Вопросы физиологии мочеточников. Л.: Медицина, 1970. 160 с.
- Пытель Ю.А., Золотарев И.И. Неотложная урология. М.: Медицина, 1985. 320 с.
Supplementary files
