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 |
| id |
iium-51233 |
|---|---|
| recordtype |
eprints |
| spelling |
iium-512332016-10-16T04:40:03Z http://irep.iium.edu.my/51233/ RE: Semi‑rigid ureteroscopy – Proximal versus distal ureteral stone Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli RD Surgery 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. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2016-07 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://irep.iium.edu.my/51233/1/letter_to_editor_URS_urology_annal_june_2016.pdf Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli (2016) RE: Semi‑rigid ureteroscopy – Proximal versus distal ureteral stone. Urology Annals, 8 (3). pp. 400-401. ISSN 0974-7796 E-ISSN 0974-7834 http://www.urologyannals.com/temp/UrolAnn83400-4109669_010829.pdf |
| repository_type |
Digital Repository |
| institution_category |
Local University |
| institution |
International Islamic University Malaysia |
| building |
IIUM Repository |
| collection |
Online Access |
| language |
English |
| topic |
RD Surgery |
| spellingShingle |
RD Surgery Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli RE: Semi‑rigid ureteroscopy – Proximal versus distal ureteral stone |
| description |
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. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli |
| author_facet |
Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli |
| author_sort |
Kamarulzaman, Mohd Nazli |
| title |
RE: Semi‑rigid ureteroscopy – Proximal
versus distal ureteral stone |
| title_short |
RE: Semi‑rigid ureteroscopy – Proximal
versus distal ureteral stone |
| title_full |
RE: Semi‑rigid ureteroscopy – Proximal
versus distal ureteral stone |
| title_fullStr |
RE: Semi‑rigid ureteroscopy – Proximal
versus distal ureteral stone |
| title_full_unstemmed |
RE: Semi‑rigid ureteroscopy – Proximal
versus distal ureteral stone |
| title_sort |
re: semi‑rigid ureteroscopy – proximal
versus distal ureteral stone |
| publisher |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| url |
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 |
| first_indexed |
2023-09-18T21:12:31Z |
| last_indexed |
2023-09-18T21:12:31Z |
| _version_ |
1777411347091292160 |