Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of gender on success and complication rates after ureteroscopy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the impact of gender differences on treatment success, intraoperative and postoperative complications in patients undergoing ureteroscopy (URS).

Materials and methods

A prospectively maintained database of 927 consecutively performed ureteroscopies on solitary ureteral stones in four different centers was retrospectively analyzed. Stones were detected with preoperative computed tomography scans or intravenous urography imaging. Patients received intravenous antibiotics as perioperative prophylaxis. Patients with symptomatic urinary tract infections (UTI) prior to surgery were excluded. Follow-up was up to 2 weeks after URS or stent removal.

Results

Two hundred and eighty-six women and 641 men were included in this study. Mean stone size was 9 mm (range 2–35 mm). A double-J stent was placed in 240 (83 %) women and 527 (82 %) men at the end of surgery (p = 0.075). There was no significant gender difference in terms of stent dislocation (p = 0.239). Two hundred and fifty-one women (87 %) and 564 men (87 %) were stone-free after the first procedure (p = 0.917). Intraoperative complications were observed in 14 (4.8 %) women and 37 (5.9 %) men (p = 0.313). Severe UTI presenting with fever (>38 °C) and requiring prolonged hospitalization with parenteral antibiotics were observed in 11 (3 %) women and 8 (1 %) men postoperatively. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.025).

Conclusion

No significant differences between female and male patients harboring ureteral stones with respect to intraoperative complications were detected. Although stone characteristics were comparable between groups, a small number of women had significantly more severe UTI’s postoperatively. Our current therapy regimen for URS seems to be efficient and safe both for females and males.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Seitz C, Fajkovic H (2013) Epidemiological gender-specific aspects in urolithiasis. World J Urol 31(5):1087–1092. doi:10.1007/s00345-013-1140-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Delvecchio FC, Auge BK, Brizuela RM, Weizer AZ, Silverstein AD, Lallas CD, Pietrow PK, Albala DM, Preminger GM (2003) Assessment of stricture formation with the ureteral access sheath. Urology 61 (3):518–522; discussion 522

  3. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck AC, Gallucci M, Knoll T, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Sarica K, Turk C, Wolf JS Jr, American Urological Association E, Research I, European Association of U (2007) 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 52(6):1610–1631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yaycioglu O, Guvel S, Kilinc F, Egilmez T, Ozkardes H (2004) Results with 7.5F versus 10F rigid ureteroscopes in treatment of ureteral calculi. Urology 64 (4):643–646; discussion 646–647. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.05.050

  5. Elashry OM, Elgamasy AK, Sabaa MA, Abo-Elenien M, Omar MA, Eltatawy HH, El-Abd SA (2008) Ureteroscopic management of lower ureteric calculi: a 15-year single-centre experience. BJU int 102(8):1010–1017. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07747.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Seitz C, Members of the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office (2014) Guidelines on urolithiasis. In: EAU guidelines, edition presented at the 29th EAU annual congress, Stockholm. ISBN 978-90-79754-65-6

  7. Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Nita G, Mirciulescu V, Cauni V (2006) Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol 20(3):179–185. doi:10.1089/end.2006.20.179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. De La Rosette J, Denstedt JD, Geavlete PA, Keeley F, Matsuda T, Pearle MS, Preminger GM, Traxer O (2013) The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11885 patients. J Endourol. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0436

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. El-Nahas AR, El-Tabey NA, Eraky I, Shoma AM, El-Hefnawy AS, El-Assmy AM, Soliman S, Youssef RF, El-Kenawy MR, Shokeir AA, El-Kappany HA (2009) Semirigid ureteroscopy for ureteral stones: a multivariate analysis of unfavorable results. J Urol 181(3):1158–1162. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mandal S, Goel A, Singh MK, Kathpalia R, Nagathan DS, Sankhwar SN, Singh V, Singh BP, Sinha RJ, Dalela D (2012) Clavien classification of semirigid ureteroscopy complications: a prospective study. Urology 80(5):995–1001. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.05.047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Anagnostou T, Tolley D (2004) Management of ureteric stones. Eur Urol 45(6):714–721. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2003.10.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grasso M (2000) Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of ureteral and intrarenal calculi. Urol Clin North Am 27(4):623–631

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Strohmaier WL, Schubert G, Rosenkranz T, Weigl A (1999) Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Eur Urol 36(5):376–379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kurahashi T, Miyake H, Oka N, Shinozaki M, Takenaka A, Hara I, Fujisawa M (2007) Clinical outcome of ureteroscopic lithotripsy for 2,129 patients with ureteral stones. Urol Res 35(3):149–153. doi:10.1007/s00240-007-0095-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fuganti PE, Pires S, Branco R, Porto J (2008) Predictive factors for intraoperative complications in semirigid ureteroscopy: analysis of 1235 ballistic ureterolithotripsies. Urology 72(4):770–774. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.05.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Nishimatsu H, Kume H, Ohe K, Matsuda S, Fushimi K, Homma Y (2013) A nomogram predicting severe adverse events after ureteroscopic lithotripsy: 12,372 patients in a Japanese national series. BJU int 111(3):459–466. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11594.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Martov A, Gravas S, Etemadian M, Unsal A, Barusso G, D’Addessi A, Krambeck A, de la Rosette J (2014) Postoperative infection rates in patients with a negative baseline urine culture undergoing ureteroscopic stone removal: a matched case-control analysis on antibiotic prophylaxis from the CROES URS global study. J Endourol. doi:10.1089/end.2014.0470

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, AKH Waehringer Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    M. Özsoy, H. Fajkovic, N. Scheffbuch & C. Seitz

  2. Department of Urology, VKF American Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ö. Acar

  3. Department of Urology, Dr. Lutfi KIRDAR Kartal Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    K. Sarica

  4. Department of Urology, KBC, Split, Croatia

    Z. Saratlija-Novakovic & D. Librenjak

  5. School of Medicine, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey

    T. Esen

Authors
  1. M. Özsoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ö. Acar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Sarica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Z. Saratlija-Novakovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Fajkovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D. Librenjak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. T. Esen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. N. Scheffbuch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. C. Seitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Özsoy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Özsoy, M., Acar, Ö., Sarica, K. et al. Impact of gender on success and complication rates after ureteroscopy. World J Urol 33, 1297–1302 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1435-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1435-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation