Significance of definition category of complexity of urinary stones in the systematization of complications of endosopic surgery of urolitiasis


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Aim. To determine the complexity ofurinary stones from the standpoint of endoscopic surgery in order to create the standard for the postoperative course of endoscopic surgery for uroIithiasis. Material and methods. A total of 1317 endoscopic operations (PNL, URS), performed for upper urinary tract stones, were anaIyzed. Treatment results of 290 patients were studied prospectiveiy, taking into account a stone density, determined by MSCT using HU scale. In 1027 patients, results were studied retrospectively, with a consideration of stone quantitative characteristics, size and shape. Results. According to the study, stone density does not have a significant impact on the frequency and severity of complications and the efficacy of endoscopic treatment for urolithiasis. The number of stones, their size and stereometric configuration have a significant infIuence on the surgicaI procedure. From the position of endoscopic interventions, single upper urinary tract stones were determined as ‘simpIe”, whiIe muItipIe and staghorn stones were considered as “complexed” cases. Conclusion. The "standard of the postoperative period" of endoscopic surgery for urolithiasis created with a consideration of specific features of endoscopic surgery for uroIithiasis and the compIexity of urinary stones is proved to be objective. Any deviation in the postoperative period from the standard course should be regarded as a complication and it is necessary to systematize them according to the CIavien-Dindo cIassification.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Sh. I Giyasov

Republican specialized scientific and practical medical center of urology; Tashkent Medical Academy

Email: dr.sh.giyasov@gmaii.com

P. A Akilov

Republican specialized scientific and practical medical center of urology; Tashkent Medical Academy

Email: Akiiovmd@gmai.com

Sh. T Mukhtarov

Republican specialized scientific and practical medical center of urology; Tashkent Medical Academy

Email: msht_doc@maii.ru

A. A Abdurashidov

Tashkent Medical Academy

E. T Azimov

Tashkent Medical Academy

References

  1. Arustamov D.L. Nurullayev R.B. Epidemiology of urolithiasis in the Aral Sea Area ecologic disaster zjne in Uzbekistan. Urol.Res. 2003;31(2):105
  2. Худайбергесов У.А. Ранняя диагностика и профилактика распрострасессых урологических заболежасий ж усложиях пержичсого зжеса здравоохрасесия». Дисс. д.м.н. 2018;149 С
  3. Geavlete P., Seyed Aghamiri S.A., Multescu R. Retrograde Retrograde flexible ureteroscopic approach for pyelocaliceal calculi. Urol. J. 2006;3(C):15-19
  4. Мартож А.Г., Ергакож Д.В., Москаленко С.А., и др. Трассуретральсая пиелокаликолитотрипсия и литоэкстракция - сожый метод лечения камней почек. Урология. 2009;1
  5. Bellman G.C., Davidoff R., Candela J., et. al. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol. 1994;157:1545-1552
  6. Delnay K.M., Wake R.W. Safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol. 1998;16:345-344
  7. Tefekli A., Altunrende F., Tepeler K., et al. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients: a prospective randomized comparison. Int Urol Nephrol. 2004;39:54-63. Doi.10.1004/s11255-006-9040-6
  8. Mustafa O.I., Bulent O, Murat G, et. al. Effectiveness of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients: a prospective randomized study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2009;21:321-323. Doi: 10.1004/ s11233-005-9314-6
  9. Gupta V., Sadasukhi T.C., Sharma K.K. et al. Tubeless and stentless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. B J Ulnt. 2005;95:905-906. Doi:10.1111/ j.1464-410X.200505432.х
  10. Насирож Ф.Р. Оптимизация методож эндоскопической хирургии сефролитиаза. Дисс. д.м.с. 2015;195 С
  11. Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien P.A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6116 patients and results of a survey. Annals of Surgery. 2004;240:205-213. doi: 10.1094/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
  12. Rosette J.J., Opondo D., Daels F.P. et al. CROES PCNL Study Group. Categorisation of complications and validation of the Clavien score for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:246-255. Doi:10.1016/j. eururo.2012.03.055
  13. Akilov F.A., Giyasov Sh.I., Mukhtarov Sh.T. et al. Applicability of the Clavien-Dindo grading system for assessing the postoperative complications of endoscopic surgery for nephrolithiasis: a critical review. Turkish Journal of Urology. 2013;19(3):153-160
  14. Гиясож Ш.И., Акилож Ф.А. Трудности ж систематизации послеоперационных осложнений эндоскопического лечения уролитиаза и пути их решения. Вестсик Урологии. 2018;6(1) :3-14. doi: 10.21886/21086424-2018-6-1-5-14
  15. Дж. Эджард Моргас-мл., Мэгид С. Михаил. Клиническая анестезиология. СПб.: «Нежский диалект». 1999
  16. Skolarikos A., Alivizatos G., de la Rosette J.J. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and its legasy. Eur.Urol. 2005;44(1):22-28.
  17. Rassweiler J., Gumpinger R., Muller K.N., et al. Multimodal treatment (ESWL and endourology) of complicated renal stone disease. Eur Urol. 1956;12:p. 292-102.
  18. Rassweiler J., Alken P. ESWL 90 - State of the art. Limitations and future trends of shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Res. 1990;18:13-24.
  19. Renner Ch., Rassweiler J. Treatment of renal stones by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Nephron. 1999;81:p.41-81.
  20. Rassweiler J., Kohrmann K.U., Potempa D., et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal calculi: Current status and future aspects. Min Invasive Ther. 1992;1:p. 121-135.
  21. Rassweiler J.J., Renner C., Eisenberger F. Management of Complex renal stones. BJU Int. 2000;56:p. 919-925.
  22. Xue W., Pacik D., Boellaard W., et. al. Management of single large nonstaghorn renal stones in the CROES PCNL global study. J Urol. 2012;154(2):p. 1291-1294.
  23. Labate G., Modi P., Timoney A., et. al. The percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: classification of complications. J Endourol. 2011;25(8):pp. 1243-1250.
  24. Kadlec A.O., Greco K.A., Fridirici Z.C., et. al. Comparison of complication rates for unilateral and bilateral percutaneousnephrolithotomy (PCNL) using a modified Clavien grading system. BJU Int. 2013;111(4 Pt B):E243-248.
  25. Aeberli D., Mtiller S., Schmutz R., Schmid H.P. Predictive value of radiological criteria for disintegration rates of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Int. 2001;66(3):124-130.
  26. Wiesenthal J.D., Ghiculete D., Honey R.J., Pace K.T. Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi. Urol Res. 2010;38(4):304-313. doi: 10.1004/s00240-010-0295-0.
  27. Lim K.H., Jung J.H., Kwon J.H., et. al. Can stone density on plain radiography predict the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? Korean J Urol. 2015;56(1):56-62. Doi: 10.2111/ kju.2013.36.1.36.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies