RE: Semi‑rigid ureteroscopy – Proximal versus distal ureteral stone
I read with great interest the article “Semi‑rigid ureteroscopy: Proximal versus distal ureteral stone” by Alameddine et al.[1] This article highlights important findings regarding common endourology procedure which is ureteroscopy. Since development of semi‑rigid ureteroscope, various studies h...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://irep.iium.edu.my/51233/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/51233/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/51233/1/letter_to_editor_URS_urology_annal_june_2016.pdf |
| Summary: | I read with great interest the article “Semi‑rigid ureteroscopy:
Proximal versus distal ureteral stone” by Alameddine
et al.[1] This article highlights important findings regarding
common endourology procedure which is ureteroscopy. Since
development of semi‑rigid ureteroscope, various studies had
been done to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy.
In this study, the authors found that stone‑free rate was
comparable between proximal (89%) and distal (98.2%)
ureteric stone with insignificant difference in complication
rate.
This study was retrospective in nature which had some
limitations. The limitation found in this study was the
selection of ureteroscope size. The authors stated that
the ureteroscope size used ranged between 8 and 11
French.[1] These ranges were including almost all sizes of
available ureteroscopes. Whereas, in other study by Molina
Escudero et al., the ureteroscope size used was only 7 French.[2]
These created a bias in this study. Without precise selection
of the ureteroscope size, the author concluded that the use
of smaller caliber semi‑rigid ureteroscopy combined with
holmium‑yttrium‑aluminum‑garnet laser for proximal ureteral
calculi is safe.[1] In my opinion, the conclusion made by the
authors was not proved by this study. |
|---|