COMPLICACIONES UROLÓGICAS DE LA URETEROSCOPÍA FLEXIBLE EN LITIASIS RENAL: EXPERIENCIA EN UN SOLO CENTRO
Resumen
La ureteroscopia ha evolucionado de forma notable en los últimos años, debido en gran medida a los avances tecnológicos, siendo su principal aporte la utilización conjunta del láser para la fragmentación o pulverización de litos principalmente de vía urinaria superior y de difícil acceso, siendo considerada una herramienta útil, mínimamente invasiva y segura p ara el manejo de la litiasis urinaria superior.Describir las principales complicaciones observadas en el Hospital Carlos Andrade Marín en el periodo 2015 – 2017 con el uso del ureteroscopio flexible.Entre enero del 2015 y diciembre del 2017 se ha realizado 179 ureteroscopías flexibles, (44%) 79 mujeres y (56%) 100 hombres., con edades comprendidas entre 21 y 74 años (media de 46.9). Los objetivos de las ureteroscopias han sido especialmente terapéuticas (cálculos renales y ureterales).Descargas
Citas
Schuster T, Hollenbeg B, Faerber G y Wolf J. (2001). “Complications of Ureteroscopy: Analysis of predictive factors”. Journal of Urology American Urological Association, 166(2): 538-540.
Hyams F, Munver R, Bird V, Uberoi J, Shah O. (2010). “Flexible, ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience”. Journal Endourology, 24(10): 1583–1588.
Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG, Traxer O y Somani BK.( 2012). “Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Journal of Endourology. 26(10): 1257-1263.
De SH, Autorino FR, Kim FF, et al. “Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. (2015). European Urology, 67(1): 125–137.
Xu G, Wen J, Li Z, Chen J y Du C. “A comparative study to analyze the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy combined with holmium laser lithotripsy for residual calculi after percutaneous nephrolithotripsy”. (2015). International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Medicine 8(3): 4501–4507.
Sener N, Bas O, Sener E, et al. (2015). “Asymptomatic Lower Pole Small Renal Stones: Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Flexible Ureteroscopy, or Observation? A Prospective Randomized Trial”. Urology, Endourology and Stones, 85(1): 33–37.
Burr J, Ishii H, Simmonds N y Somani B. (2015). “Is flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy the new gold standard for lower pole renal stones when compared to shock wave lithotripsy: Comparative outcomes from a University hospital over similar time period”.
Central European Journal of Urololgy, 68(2): 183–186.
Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Das M y Jha S. (2015). “A prospective randomized comparison between shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower caliceal stones 2 cm: A single-center experience”. Journal of Endourology. 29(5): 575–579.
Hyams E, Monga M y Matlagak B. (2015). “A Prospective, Multi-Institutional Study of Flexible Ureteroscopy for Proximal Ureteral Stones Smaller than 2 cm”. Journal of Urology, 193(1): 165–169.
Donaldson J, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, et al. (2015). “Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones”. European Urology 67(4): 612–616.
Inoue T, Murota T, Okada S, et al.(2015). “Influence of pelvicaliceal anatomy on stone clearance after flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for large renal stones”. Journal of Endourology, 29(9): 998–1005.
Zhang Y, Nault I y Zhong P. (2016). “Effects of Stone Size on the Comminution Process and Efficiency in Shock Wave Lithotripsy”. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology – Journal, 42(11): 2662-2675.
Monga, M. (2013). Ureteroscopy - Indications, Instrumentation & Technique. Books Editorial Humana Press; 211-251.
Martov A, Gravas S, Etemadian M, Unsal A, Barusso G, D’Addessi A, et al. (2015). “Postoperative infection rates in patients with a negative baseline urine culture undergoing urteroscopic stone removal: a matched casecontrol analysis on antibiotic prophylaxis from the CROES URS global study”. Journal of Endourologyc, 29(3):171–80.
Kotb Y, Mahmoud A y Nashaat K. (2018). “Comparative Study between Flexible Ureteroscopy and Semirigid Ureteroscopy in Management of Upper Ureteric Stones using Laser Lithotripsy”. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine. 73(1): 5770-5776.
Liu Y, Lu J, Chunlei X y Ma L. (2018). “Pd45-11 A Nomogram For Predicting The Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome After Flexible Ureteroscope Lithtripsy For Upper Urinary Tract Calculi”. 199(4): e890
Giusti G, Proiettii S, Villa L, Cloutier J, et al. (2016). “Current Standard Technique for Modern Flexible Ureteroscopy: Tips and Tricks”, European Urology, 70(1): 188-194.
Jessen JP, Breda A, Brehmer M, et al. “International Collaboration in Endourology: Multicenter Evaluation of Prestenting for Ureterorenoscopy”. Journal of Endourology. 30(3): 268–273.
York N, Zheng M, Elmansy H, Rivera M y James K. (2019). “Stone-free Outcomes of Flexible Ureteroscopy for Renal Calculi Utilizing Computed Tomography Imaging”. Urology. 124(2): 52-56.
Davis NF, Quinlan MR, Browne C, et al. (2018). “Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: asystematic review”. World Journal of Urology. 36(4):529–536.
Deininger S, Haberstock L, Kruck S, et al. (2018). “Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices”. World Journal of Urology. 36(12):2059-2063.
Emiliani E, Mercade A, Millan F, et al. (2018). “First clinical evaluation of the new singleuse flexible and semirigid Pusen ureteroscopes”. Central European Journal of Urology, 71(2): 208-213.
Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, et al. (2016). “Comparison of new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposable fiber optic and digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model”. Journal of Endourology. 30(6): 655–659.
Hennessey DB, Fojecki GL, Papa NP, et al. (2018). “Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis”. British Association of Urological Surgeons, 121(3): 55–61.
Taguchi K, Usawachintachit M, Tzou DT, et al. (2018). “Micro-costing analysis demonstrates comparable costs for lithovue compared to reusable flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes”. Journal of Endourology. 32(4): 267–273.
Mager R, Kurosch M, Hofner T, et al. (2018). “Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study”. Urolithiasis. 46(6): 587-593
Geavlete P, Saglam R, Georgescu D, et al. (2016). “Robotic flexible ureteroscopy versus classic flexible ureteroscopy in renal stones: the initial Romanian experience”. Chirurgia. 111(4): 326–329.
Aldoukhi AH, Roberts WW, Hall TL y Ghani KR. (2017). “Holmium laser lithotripsy in the new stone age: dust or bust?”. Frontiers in Surgery, 4: 57.
Kronenberg P y Somani B. (2018). “Advances in lasers for the treatment of stones-a systematic review”. Endourology. 19(6):45
Dale J, Kaplan A, Radvak D, et al. (2017) “Evaluation of a novel single-use flexible ureteroscope”. Journal of Endoirology, 72:152–153.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
CC BY-NC-SA : Esta licencia permite a los reutilizadores distribuir, remezclar, adaptar y construir sobre el material en cualquier medio o formato solo con fines no comerciales, y solo siempre y cuando se dé la atribución al creador. Si remezcla, adapta o construye sobre el material, debe licenciar el material modificado bajo términos idénticos.
OAI-PMH URL: https://revista.uniandes.edu.ec/ojs/index.php/METANOIA/oai
