Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 3041   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 418-422

Prospective randomized comparison between fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ureteroscopy with real-time ultrasonography for the management of ureteral stones

Department of Urology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Bimalesh Purkait
Department of Urology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.192098

PMID: 28057984

Rights and Permissions

Context and Aims: Ureteroscopy is the definitive management for ureteric stone. Conventional ureteroscopy uses fluoroscopy guidance which has radiation exposure to patients as well as hospital staff. Ultrasound is a good radiation-free alternative for using in the urological procedure. With this background, we executed a prospective randomized trial comparing fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ultrasound-guided ureteroscopy. Subjects and Methods: Patients were randomized into two groups (41 into fluoroscopy and 41 into ultrasound group after exclusion) in a single center from July 2014 to March 2015. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy was used in all cases. Ultrasound was used to place guide wire and postprocedure stents placement in ultrasound group. Patient's characteristics; intra- and post-operative parameters were compared between the two groups. Statistical Analysis Used: SPSS version 16.0 (Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. The results were presented as percentages and means (± standard deviation). The categorical/dichotomous variables were analyzed using Chi-squared test. Continuous variables were analyzed using unpaired t-test. Results: A total of 102 adult patients were randomized in this trial and eighty patients undergo the final analysis. Mean stone burden was 41.75 ± 13.44 (17.94–79.20 mm2). Mean operative time was 43.90 ± 12.99 (25–82 min) in fluoroscopy group versus 45.61 ± 11.62 (28–78 min) in ultrasound group. The initial success rate was 93.75% (92.30% in fluoroscopy vs. 95.12% in ultrasound group). Overall complications noted in 8.75% and most of the complications were minor in nature. Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided ureteroscopy is safe and effectively for ureteric stone. Fluoroscopy can be avoided during ureteroscopy for uncomplicated stone. No radiation ureteroscopy is feasible with good success and minimal complication. Larger sample size with multicentric trial needed for its greater applicability.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded340    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal