Browsing by Author "Ali, Hasan Mohammad"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Complications Of Double J Stenting In Urological Practice: A Single-Centre Experience
    (Indian Society for Health and Advanced Research, 2025-04) Bhatti, Kamran Hassan; Albudairat, Anas; Channa, Aftab Ahmed; Ali, Hasan Mohammad; Haroon, Ahmed Tarig Mahmoud; Ahmad, Jamil; Sohail, Nadeem; Shaat, Ahmed H A; Gomha, Faaz; Rabi, Barbara Miladis Depestre; Abdelrahman, Khalid Mohammed; Albodour, Amjad
    Background: The double J stents are an important part of many urological procedures, such as endoscopic or open surgery for retroperitoneal tumors of ?brosis, ureteral strictures, or treatment of urinary stones. A double-J stent is never without potential complications, which may range from minor in the form of hematuria, dysuria, frequency, ?ank, and suprapubic pain to major complications such as vesicoureteric re?ux, migration, malposition, encrustation, and stent fracture. Patients were taken from the 3000 urological patients who had undergone double-JMethods: ureteral stenting attending the Urology Department. Data regarding patients' complications were recorded as soon as a double-J ureteral stent was placed till it was removed. Complications of double J ureteral stenting in the majority ofResults: patients in our study were ?ank or suprapubic pain, dysuria, hematuria, and urgency, which were managed conservatively. Stent migration and encrustation are major complications managed by the removal of the stent. The double JConclusions: stents are a great tool for the urologist to prevent and help bypass blockage. Unfortunately, these are not without risks. As soon as possible, complications of the Double J stent should be assessed and treated.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Efficacy Of Various Modalities In Flexible Ureteroscopy; A Single-Centers Experience
    (Indian Society for Health and Advanced Research, 2025-04) Bhatti, Kamran Hassan; Ahmad, Jamil; Albudairat, Anas; Ali, Hasan Mohammad; Haroon, Ahmed Tarig Mahmoud; Sohail, Nadeem; Gomha, Faaz; Abdelrahman, Khalid Mohammed; Shaat, Ahmed H A; Abodour, Amjad
    Objective: To compare the ef?cacy of dusting and basketing during ?exible ureteroscopy for renal stones. Study Design: Place and Duration of the Study:Observational study Department of Urology, Hamad Medical Corporation Al Khor Qatar, from January 2017 to December 2022. Research was conducted retrospectivelyMethodology: on 1750 patients who received ?exible ureteroscopic treatment for renal stones of 2cm or less. The research divided patients into two groups: dusting, which included 950 patients and fragmentation with basketing, which had 800 patients. The research period was extended to 3 months for all participating patients. The study analyzed operating time as well as access sheath usage and lasing time and hospital stay and stone-free rate (SFR) and complication rate. The average stone dimensions between theResults: dusting group and the basketing group were 11.5±3.5 mm and 12.3±3.8 mm respectively. The essential baseline demographics of patients proved equivalent between the two comparison groups. The patients in the dusting group required less operative time compared to those in the basketing group with 45.1±10.8 minutes versus 63.5±13.8 minutes, and four patients from the dusting group and two patients from the basketing group needed intensive care unit admission because of septic shock but received successful treatment. The basketing technique yielded a statistically higher SFR rate of 78.7% following surgery compared to the dusting group with 62.7% (p=0.001). Basketing proved more effective for SFR since 86.4% of patients achieved positive results compared to 76.3% (p=0.001) in the dusting group. The success rate for the operation reached 87.8% in the dusting group but 90.2% in the basketing group throughout the 3-month follow-up period. The basketing group had a 12.4% requirement for secondary fURS sessions, while the dusting group needed it only at 9.8%. Operation time and complications decreased through theConclusion: dusting technique although laser intervention needed more time than basketing. Both methods exhibit different strengths and weaknesses because they successfully treat renal stones. The selection between the two techniques depends on the stone characteristics and patient demographics. Our initial clinical experience includes both ?exible ureteroscope models. The safety evaluation of our study demonstrates that one-time-use fURS functions as a suitable replacement for multiple-use fURS models. The stone-free success rates and complications are equivalent to those of these two devices. Extended follow-up studies with proper designs are needed to evaluate the ef?ciency of these techniques and different ?exible ureteroscope types to produce better recommendations.