medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial de el Colegio Mexicano de Urología

2002, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Bol Col Mex Urol 2002; 17 (2)

LASER lithotripsy as treatment of the ureteral´s calculus. Comparative study with “Candela MDL-2000 equipment vs. Lithognost, Kevork Instruments”

Hernández VVS, Sánchez MLC, Álvarez VJ

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 71-77
PDF size: 103.89 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective. To determine the efficiency of the LASER lithotripsy as treatment of the uretheral’s calculus. Quantity the complications presented with the LASER employment as treatment of the urinary stones. To establish the advantages between the two applicate systems.
Material and methods. Experimental study, prospective, transverse, comparative and open; in where they are selected two groups (group 1: 25 patients, group 2: 10 patients) of referred hospital patients belonging to the area of influence of the HECMN “La Raza”. To the first is applied the treatment with Candela LASER MDL-2000 and to the seconds with Lithognost.
Results. The group 1 of 25 patients treated with Candela laser MDL-2000 presented a fragmentation efficiency of the 100%, without complications due to this procedure; the second group of 10 patients treated with LASER Lithognost presented the same results, no existing difference significative statistically in the following items: direct shoots on the stone, fragmentation time, complications, percentage of efficiency, age and sex. They are evident the therapeutic advantages of the laser energy in relationship to the technical conventionalment used. We find solely difference significative statistically in the impulse frequency laser.
Conclusions. The LASER treatment is effective, low-cost, promp recovery and rapid integration of the patient to daily life, low percentages of complications and safety in the application of the same. Existing clear conformity with it reported in the world literature.


REFERENCES

  1. Dretler. SP. An evaluation of ureteral laser lithotripsy. 225 consecutives patients. J Urol. Febrero 1990; 143: 267-272.

  2. Parr NJ, Pye SP, Tolcey DA. Comparison of the performance of two pulsed dye laser using a synthetics stones model. J Urol. Noviembre 1994; 152: 1619-1621.

  3. Higashihara E, Horie S, Takeuchi T et al. Laser uretero-lithotripsy with combined rigid and flexible ureteroendoscopy. J Urol. Febrero 1990; 143: 273-274.

  4. Nelson JB, Graham JB. Lithotripsy urinary calculi by turnetable pulsed dye laser: a randomized in vitro study. J Urol. Marzo 1994; 151: 656-659.

  5. Dretler S P, Bhatta KM. Clinical experience with high power (140 mJ), larger fibber (320 micras) pulsed dye laser lithotripsy. J Urol. Noviembre 1991; 146 (5): 1228-1231.

  6. Watson GM. Initial experience with a pulsed dye laser for ureteric calculi. Lancet. Junio 1990; 1357-1360.

  7. Dretler S. Pulsed dye laser fragmentation of ureteral calculi: initial clinical experience. J Urol. Marzo 1987; 137: 386-389.

  8. Watson GM. The pulsed dye laser for fragmentation urinary calculi. J Urol. Julio 1987; 139: 199.

  9. Grasso M. Techniques in endoscopic lithotripsy using dye laser. J Urol. Febrero 1991; 37: 138-42.

  10. Psihramis KW. Laser Lithotripsy of the difficult ureteral calculus: results in 122 patients. J Urol. Abril 1992; 147: 1010-1012.

  11. Cledening L. Sourcebook of medical history; p: 14. Nueva York, Dover publications Inc. 1942.

  12. Scarpa RM et al. Ureteral lithotripsy with rigid ureteroscopy and pulsed dye laser. Arch Ital Urol Nefrol Androl. Marzo 1991; 63 (1): 119-124.

  13. Vandeurson A et al. High energy pulsed dye laser lithotripsy: management of ureteral calcium oxalate monohydrate calculi. J Urol. Junio 1991; 145 (6): 1146-1150.

  14. Benizri E et al. Comparison of two pulsed laser for lithotripsy of ureteral calculi: report on 154 patients. J Urol. Diciembre 1993; 150 (6): 1803-1805.

  15. Ruiz Marcellan FJ, Ivars SL, Ramón DM. Treatment of ureteral litiasis using the laser. Arch Esp Urol. Junio 1991; 44 (55): 557-561.

  16. Orantes SA, Durazo F, Paullada J. Litiasis urinaria en México, revisión de la casuística nacional de los últimos 10 años. Rev Mex Urol. 1963; 21: 29.

  17. Young HH, Mc Kay RW. Congenital valvular obstruction of the prostatic urethra. Surg Gynecol Obstet. Abril 1995; 48: 509.

  18. Goodman TM. Ureteroscopy with pediatric cystoscope in adults. Urology. Junio 1977; 9: 394.

  19. Lyon ES, Kyker JS, Schoemberg HW. Transurethral ureteroscopy in women. A Ready addition to the urological armamentarium. J Urol. Septiembre 1978; 199: 35.

  20. Lyon ES, Banno JJ, Schomberg HW. Transurethral ureteroscopy in men using juvenille cystoscopy equipment. J Urol. Octubre 1979; 122: 152.

  21. Pérez A, Castro EE, Martínez JA. Transurethral ureteroscopy, a current urological procedure. Arch Esp Urol. Junio 1980; 33:445.

  22. Smith JA, Stein BS, Benson RC. Laser in urologic surgery. Third edition St. Louis. Mosby Year Book,: 1994; 190.

  23. Ibid. 192.

  24. Ibid. 193.

  25. Téllez M, Burgos M, Soria DJ et al. Estudio in vitro de la fragmentación de los cálculos urinarios con cuatro sistemas de litofragmentación diferentes. Act Urol Esp. Septiembre 1997; 21 (3): 216-226.

  26. Marz DB, Romani JP, Ingrand P et al. Experimental study of urinari calculi, fragmentation with pulsed laser shockwave, based on their chemical composition. Prog Urol. Noviembre 1995; 5 (5): 663-670.

  27. Baba S, Asanoma H, Tazakai H. Pulsed dye laser lithotripsy for ureteral stone fragmentation, Kero. J Med. Diciembre 1993; 42: 209-211.

  28. Boline GB, Beklis JA. Outpatient fragmentation of ureteral calculi with miniureteroscope and laser lithotripsy. J Endourology. Octubre 1994; 8 (5): 341-343..

  29. Esvuaranathan K, Tan EE, Tung KH. Does transurethral laser ureterolithotripsy justify its cost. J Urol. Septiembre 1992; 148 (III-2) Ñ 1091-1094.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com