Large Proximal Ureteral Stones Research Articles

Flexible Ureteroscopy versus Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy in the Management of upper Ureteric Stones Measuring from One to Two Centimeters: Randomized Prospective Study

Abstract Objective This prospective study aims to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the management of upper ureteric stones measuring from one to two centimeters. Methods his randomized-prospective study was conducted on 64 patients admitted from Urology unit, Ain Shams University in the period from October 2020 till September 2022; only 56 patients were analyzed statistically and 8 patients were excluded due to shortage in post- operative data and follow up. Patients were divided into two groups Group A consists of 31 patients and Group B consists of 25 patients with matched age, gender and body mass index (BMI). Results In our study, The VAS score at 6 hours post-operative and day 1 post-operative was found to be 5.32 and 2.71 in FURS group and was found to be 7.28 and 3.28 in RPLU group respectively showing significant difference with (p- value <0.001 and 0.016 respectively) between the two groups with more satisfaction in FURS group mostly due to the absence of trocars incisions. The complications were classified according to modified Clavien classification system. No major complications such as septic shock or death were reported in either treatment groups. As regards the recovery to work in postoperative and follow up periods in the present study, there was a significant difference between both groups with (P-value <0.001), as we found that it takes about 4.56 ± 0.82 days in RPLU group and 3.06 ± 1.91 days in FURS group to return daily routine activities. As regards the stone free rate in follow up periods in the present study, there was a significant difference between both groups with (P-value 0,02), as we found that it was 100% and 80,6% in RPLU and FURS group respectively. Our success rate in RPLU group was found to be 100% in comparison to Irfan Nazir Mir et al which was 93.4% (28/30) with two patients (2/30) converted to open ureterolithotomy, either due to technical snag or due to difficulty in localizing the ureter laparoscopically. Conclusion Both F-URS and RTLU were safe and effective surgical procedures for treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. However, RTLU had a higher stone-free rate with comparable operating time and complication rate as compared to F-URS. Also as regards to postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay and faster return to daily activities, both have almost similar results.

A Cross-Sectional Study Comparing Tubed PCNL And Tubeless PCNL: An Experience at the Institute of Kidney Diseases (IKD), Peshawar

Background: Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has revolutionized the treatment of large renal and proximal ureteric stones, offering a minimally invasive alternative to open surgery. The introduction of tubeless PCNL, which omits the placement of a nephrostomy drainage tube, has generated discussion regarding its efficacy and safety compared to the traditional tubed PCNL. Objective: This study aims to compare the outcomes of tubed versus tubeless PCNL in terms of post-operative complications, recovery time, and efficacy in stone removal. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 110 patients who underwent PCNL at the Institute of Kidney Disease, Peshawar, from January 2017 to December 2020. Patients were allocated into two groups, tubed PCNL (n=50) and tubeless PCNL (n=50), based on 1:1 sequential randomization. The inclusion criteria were ASA I and ASA II classification, age between 5 to 70 years, and single tract procedure with complete clearance without the need for a second look nephrostomy. Exclusion criteria included patients with a solitary kidney, active urinary tract infections, and congenital malformations. Data on age, gender, co-morbidities, history of ESWL, stone size, location, quantity, and post-operative outcomes were collected and analyzed using SPSS version 25. Results: No significant differences were found in patient demographics or stone characteristics between the two groups. The tubeless PCNL group demonstrated a significantly lower rate of post-operative ESWL sessions (4% vs. 22%, p=0.02) and a trend towards shorter hospital stays, although not statistically significant. The drop in hemoglobin levels post-operation was less in the tubeless group (0.84 ± 1.87 mg/dl) compared to the tubed group (1.56 ± 0.91 mg/dl), but this was not statistically significant (p=0.17). Conclusion: Tubeless PCNL offers a viable alternative to traditional tubed PCNL, particularly for patients with smaller renal stones. It is associated with a lower need for post-operative ESWL sessions and potentially shorter hospital stays, suggesting an advantage in terms of recovery and post-operative comfort. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings and explore the long-term outcomes of the tubeless technique.

A Comparative Analysis between Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Treatment of >15 mm Non-Obstructing Proximal Ureteral Stones.

The proper surgical modality for large non-obstructing proximal ureteral stones is disputed. We compare effectiveness and safety of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURL) and tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (TPNL) in treatment of upper ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm. We reviewed the medical records of patients who performed FURL or TPNL for upper ureteral stones between June 2016 and November 2018. Comparative analysis was conducted regarding demographic parameters, stone free rate, postoperative pain and complications. This study included 58 patients treated with FURL and 60 patients treated with TPNL owing to upper ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm. Stone size was similar in the FURL and TPNL groups (17.6 ± 2.6 vs. 18.0 ± 2.1 mm, p = 0.194). The overall 3-month stone clearance rate was 95.8% for FURL versus 96.0% for TPNL (p = 0.575). There was no difference between the FURL and TPNL groups for hospital stay (p = 0.280) and postoperative complications. On the other hand, patients treated with FURL had longer operative time (p = 0.012) and less postoperative pain (p = 0.008). Both surgical techniques were considered feasible and effective surgical procedures in the treatment of large upper ureteral stones.

TREATMENT TACTICS FOR PATIENTS WITH LARGE PROXIMAL URETERAL STONES

Background. A retrospective analysis of surgical treatment of patients with large proximal ureteral stones for the period from January 2018 to December 2022 was carried out. A total of 275 patients were included in the study, 246 (89.4%) men and 29 (10.5 %) women, The average age was 42.7±3.5 years. The inclusion criteria were the stone size ≥10 mm, the average size was 12.7±0.8 cm, the localization of the stone was above the intersection of the ureter with the iliac vessels. The patients were divided into groups according to the performed method of surgical treatment: remote lithotripsy (ESWL-ureterolithotripsy) in 75 patients, percutaneous (antegrade) lithotripsy in 38 patients and transurethral lithotripsy in 128 patients. Simultaneous percutaneous percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNLT) and transurethral ureterolithotripsy were performed in 14 patients and percutaneous (antegrade) flexible ureterolithotripsy through previously formed percutaneous accesses was performed in 20 patients. The density of stones subjected to ESWL was significantly lower than in groups with other methods of treatment p≤0.001. Percutaneous methods of treatment were used for larger stones (p<0.05). The SFR index was achieved with ESWL in 60 (80 %) and was maximally expressed with endoscopic and percutaneous methods of treatment. Antegrade flexible ureterolithotripsy was achieved in 19 (95 %) patients in the group. Simultaneous percutaneous and retrograde interventions were successful in 12 (85.7 %) patients, which is comparable to the effectiveness of PLT — 32 (84,2 %) patients. Intraoperative complications were noted in 2 (2.6 %) patients in the ESWL group (subcapsular hematoma) and in 17 (8.5 %) cases in the endoscopic and percutaneous treatment groups. Postoperative complications were associated with exacerbation of pyelonephritis in 18 (6.5 %) patients and were managed by the conservative measures. Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness of the main methods of treatment for large proximal ureteral stones. Materials and Methods. The results of the performed surgical treatment of patients with large stones of the proximal ureter in one of the Urological Departments of the Urological Center of the National Medical Research Center for High Medical Technologies named after A.A. Vishnevsky for the period from January 2018 to December 2022 were analyzed. A total of 275 patients were included in the study Results. The key indicator of the effectiveness of surgical intervention in large stones of the proximal ureter is the stonefree rate (SFR), which was achieved with ESWL-ureterolithotripsy in 60 (80 %) patients and the maximum in the group of antegrade flexible ureterolithotripsy in 19 (95 %) patients. Conclusions. Percutaneous and transurethral endoscopic methods of treatment demonstrate the greatest effectiveness of removing large stones of the proximal ureter. ESWL-ureterolithotripsy as a first-line method can be considered provided that the kidney function on the side of the stone is preserved and there are no clinical manifestations of obstructive pyelonephritis activity. ESWL-ureterolithotripsy is successful with a stone density of up to 1000-1100 HU.

Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy and Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscope For Unilateral Large Ureteral Stone and Small Renal Stone.

BACKGROUND The removal of concurrent ureteral and renal stones within a single procedure has always been a challenge for urological surgeons. The incorporation of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes into laparoscopic ureterolithotomy procedures has demonstrated effective removal of concurrent stones with a good clearance rate and decreased risk of bleeding and trauma. We report the successful removal of a unilateral upper ureteral stone and a smaller renal stone with this procedure. CASE REPORT A 60-year-old man visited the outpatient clinic with an ultrasonography report that revealed a large proximal ureteral stone with moderate hydronephrosis, accompanied by bilateral renal stones and prostatic hyperplasia. He had been experiencing urinary urgency for a year and was determined to undergo lithotomy. Due to his longstanding history of coronary artery disease and myocardial ischemia, the urologists decided that concurrent stone removal within an operation would be the best treatment. A preoperative computed tomography urogram measured the left ureteral and renal stones to be 2.0×0.8 cm and 0.6 cm, respectively. Both stones were successfully removed by laparoscopic ureterolithotomy using a single-use digital flexible ureteroscope. The patient had an uneventful recovery and remained well 1 month post-operation. CONCLUSIONS The application of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes for laparoscopic ureterolithotomy has demonstrated safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. The authors believe that it is a safe alternative for the removal of concurrent ureteral and renal stones, especially in patients with multiple comorbidities.

Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopy in the management of impacted proximal ureteral stones

Introduction and objective: Management of large impacted proximal ureteral stones is often challenging due to the presence of mucosal edema, inflammation and angulations of the ureter and other factors which impede stone access, visibility and lithotripsy and can lead to different types of complications. The objective of our study is to compare the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (mini-PCNL) and ureteroscopy (URS) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones. Material and methods: The medical records of 345 patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones 10-20 mm, treated between January 2016 – November 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. 178 patients (51.6%) underwent mini-PCNL, and 167 (48.4%) – URS. Data on patients’ preoperative characteristics, stone-free rates, operating times, intra- and postoperative complications were compared. Results: Patients’ preoperative characteristics were comparable between the two groups, except for mean stone surface and stone size, which were significantly higher in the mini-PCNL group (respectively, 137.87±44.32mm2 vs 80.94±29.66mm2, p=0.000; and 15.03±2.43 vs 12.02±2.22mm, p=0.000). The stone free rate after single procedure was 94.9% for mini-PCNL and 89,3% in the URS group (p=0,116). Four patients (2.3%) in the mini-PCNL group had significant hemorrhage necessitating selective renovasography and angioembolization of AV fistula. 21 (12.5%) patients had stones showing upward migration during the URS procedure and 3 (1.8%) had partial perforation of the ureteral wall. Hemoglobin drop was significantly higher in mini-PNL group (13.58±12.79g/l vs 4.69±5.72g/l, p=0,000). Mean operative time was significantly longer in the URS group, despite the smaller size of the stones (respectively, 41.41±13.62min vs. 30.67±10.34min, p=0,000). There were statistically significant difference of the necessity of auxiliary procedures in the URS group (respectively, 78 patients (46,4%) vs 6 patients (3.6%), p=0.000). Conclusions: For an impacted, proximal ureteral stone mini-PNL had better stone-free rates, shorter operative time and low percentage of auxiliary procedure and hospitalizations. However, URS had the advantages of less invasiveness procedure and shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Efficacy and safety of retrograde ureteroscopy for the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones larger than 10 mm

Introduction and objective: Optimal management of large impacted proximal ureteral stones remains controversial. Retrograde ureteroscopy in these cases may be challenging due to the presence of mucosal edema and inflammation, tortuousity and unusual angulations of the ureter. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of retrograde ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones larger than 10 mm. Material and methods: A prospectively collected database of 143 patients, who underwent retrograde ureteroscopy for impacted proximal ureteral stones ≥ 10 mm between January 2016 and December 2021, was reviewed. Data on patients’ preoperative characteristics, stone-free rates, complications and auxiliary procedures was analyzed. Results: Patients’ mean age was 54.2±13.4 years, and male-to-female ratio – 67.8%/32.2%. Mean stone length was 14.2±5.4 mm and mean stone width – 9.6±2.9 mm. 26 (18.2%) patients were on preoperative anticoagulation therapy, which could not be discontinued. 26 patients (18.2%) had preoperative drainage with ureteral stent JJ, and 7 (4.9%) – with percutaneous nephrostomy. Stone-free rate after single procedure was 88.8%. Mean operative time was 44.2±15.4 min. There were no cases of failed endoscopic access to the stone. Flexible ureteroscopy was performed in 34 (23.8%) cases. Postoperative drainage was ureteral stent JJ in 71 (49.7%) patients and ureteral catheter for 24 h – in 33 (23.1%). Most common postoperative complications were fever in 5 (3.5%) and postoperative renal colic – in 5 (3.5%) patients. 8 patients (5.6%) underwent SWL for treatment of residual fragments and 2 (1.4%) – retrograde intrarenal surgery. Conclusions: The results from this study demonstrate that retrograde ureteroscopy is an effective and safe treatment modality for impacted proximal ureteral stones ≥ 10 mm. Its high stone-free rate and low complication rate make retrograde URS a suitable first-line treatment for anticoagulated patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones, who are at increased risk of complications from the antegrade approach

Comparison of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and retrograde lithotripsy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones

The current approach in the surgical treatment of ureteral calculi involves the use of endourological procedures such as retrograde ureteroscopy with lithotripsy or percutaneous antegrade lithotripsy in the proximal ureter. Ureterolithotomy as a treatment method is of an auxiliary nature and is used when endourological intervention is impossible or in case of intraoperative collisions during access conversion. However, there are several comparative studies on lithotripsy and lithotomy.The aim. Comparative analysis of the outcomes of laparoscopic lithotomy and retrograde lithotripsy in the surgical treatment of proximal ureteral calculi, as well as the search for predictors of prolonged disability.Materials and methods. A prospective randomized multicenter study included 53 patients with an established diagnosis of ureterolithiasis who were treated in the period 2018–2021 in urological hospitals in Irkutsk. All patients were divided into two comparison groups: Lithotomy group (group 1; n = 30) and Lithotripsy group (group 2; n = 23).Results. When analyzing the results of the study, it was found that the level of complications of class II–III according to Clavien – Dindo was statistically comparable in both groups (p > 0.05). However, in absolute and relative terms, the prevalence of this indicator was noted during retrograde ureterolithotripsy. According to hard endpoints (reoperation, presence of residual stones or migration during the operation), 29 (96.6 %) patients of group 1 and 17 (73.4 %) patients of group 2 (p = 0.514) were successfully operated on.Conclusion. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy may be offered to patients with large proximal ureteral stones as an alternative treatment option with better residual stone freedom but generally similar overall outcomes and complication rates.

Ultrasound-Guided Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with Suction Sheath.

The mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a mainstay in the treatment of kidney calculi, particularly in case of >2 cm kidney stones, large lower pole stones, large impacted proximal ureteral stones, and residual stones after failed extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or retrograde intrarenal surgery. An accurate renal access represents a fundamental part of the procedure, modalities to guide the percutaneous tract preparation include ultrasound, fluoroscopy, or their combination. Both ultrasound and fluoroscopy offer several advantages and some limitations. The combined utilization of ultrasound and fluoroscopy is less adopted nowadays; however, this strategy has its merits particularly in cases where the puncture can be problematic with one imaging modality alone. Ultrasound can easily identify the posterior renal calix and surrounding visceral structures, although some situations such as obese patients, undilated collecting system or complex stones may represent a challenge. Intracaliceal blood clots and air may reflect ultrasound, reducing significantly the image quality. Therefore, the assessment of the intrarenal anatomy, the stone identification, and the ability of guiding the needle during access may decrease significantly, particularly in cases with complex stones, when multiple tracts are required. In these cases, fluoroscopy could determine the relationship between the angle and depth of the puncture needle and the target calices by rotating the C-arm to help the needle puncture and tract dilation. Therefore, the benefits of dual guidance would be beneficial during PCNL. In addition to an improved accuracy of puncture and dilation, the combined approach improves the detection of residual stones, facilitating the achievement of a stone-free state. Herein we describe our experience with this technique, describing surgical steps and troubleshooting tips of mini-PCNL in the accompanying video. Further high-quality studies are needed to demonstrate the advantages of combined utilization of ultrasound and fluoroscopy during PCNL and its optimal indications.

Percutaneous antegrade management of large proximal ureteral stones using non-papillary puncture

ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and the safety of medial non-papillary percutaneous nephrolithotomy (npPCNL) for the management of large proximal ureteral stones. MethodsWe evaluated prospectively collected data of 37 patients with large proximal ureteral stones more than 1.5 cm in diameter treated by prone npPCNL. Depending on stone size, in-toto stone removal or lithotripsy using the Lithoclast® Trilogy (EMS Medical, Nyon, Switzerland) was performed. Perioperative parameters including operative time (from start of puncture to the skin suturing), stone extraction time (from the first insertion of the nephroscope to the extraction of all stone fragments), and the stone-free rate were evaluated. ResultsTwenty-one males and 16 females underwent npPCNL for the management of large upper ureteral calculi. The median age and stone size of treated patients were 58 (interquartile range [IQR]: 51–69) years and 19.3 (IQR: 18.0–22.0) mm, respectively. The median operative time and stone extraction time were 25 (IQR: 21–29) min and 8 (IQR: 7–10) min, respectively. One case (2.7%) of postoperative bleeding and two cases (5.4%) of prolonged fever were managed conservatively. The stone-free rate at a 1-month follow-up was 94.6%. ConclusionThe npPCNL provides a straight route to the ureteropelvic junction and proximal ureter. Approaching from a dilated portion of the ureter under low irrigation pressure with larger diameter instruments results in effective and safe stone extraction within a few minutes.

The use of 14/16Fr ureter access sheath for safe and effective management of large upper ureteral calculi.

To evaluate the effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the management of large proximal ureteral stones > 10mm using 14/16 Fr ureteral access sheath (UAS). Patients' data from prospective database undergoing ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy with a use of 14/16Fr UAS were collected. All patients were pre-stented prior to the procedure. The fragmentation was performed with a semi-rigid ureteroscope using holmium laser energy with a power setting of 35W (frequency-35Hz; energy-1J). Follow-up was scheduled at 4 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. In total 78 patients, 43 males and 35 females, were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 59.5 ± 13.3 with a mean maximal stone diameter of 13.4 ± 2.1. The mean operative time was 35.7 ± 9.7 and the mean hospital stay was 2 ± 0.7days. The primary SFR at 4 weeks was 73 patients (93.6%), while all 78 patients (100%) were stone free at 3-month follow-up, 2 of the patients receiving additional treatment. In total, 8 (10.2%) patients experienced Grade II complications. Intraoperative ureteral lesions were observed in 41 (52.6%) cases. Out of them 31 patients (39.7%) developed Grade 1, 8 patients (10.3%) Grade 2 and only 3 patients (2.6%) Grade 3 lesions. The use of 14/16Fr ureteral access sheath on pre-stented patients was associated with successful outcomes. A high stone-free rate of 93.6% was achieved at 4-week follow-up. The procedure was not associated with increased rate of postoperative complications and intraoperative ureteral injury.

PNEUMATIC URETEROSCOPIC LITHOTRIPSY VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC URETEROLITHOTOMY FOR LARGE UPPER URETERAL STONES- AN INITIAL EXPERIENCE.

Objective: The treatment of choice for large upper ureteral stones is controversial. In the developing nations, semi rigid ureteroscopy is the preferred treatment modality for ureteric stones even in upper ureter. However, Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy has started gaining acceptance for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. This study was done to compare solely the outcomes of semi-rigid pneumatic ureterolithotripsy (URSL) and transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) for large upper ureteric stones. Methods: In all, 30 patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomised into 2 groups: URSLand LU. The groups were compared for stone clearance rate, operative time, complication rates.Results: LU had signicantly higher stone clearance rate both at discharge (p=0.014) and at 3 weeks post operatively (p = 0.033) than URSL. On the other hand, URSLhad signicantly shorter mean operating time (p<0.0001), length of hospital stay (p=0.0013) and required less auxiliary procedures than LU group. No major complications were observed and the complication rate was not statistically signicant among the groups (p=0.41).Conclusion: Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy was associated with higher stone clearance rate but with longer hospital stay and operative time than URSL, however the complications were similar. Consequently, the procedure of choice for large proximal ureteric calculi should be based on the expertise of the surgeon, patient's choice and the availability of equipments.

Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Both percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) are effective treatment options for large proximal ureteral stones. To perform a meta-analysis on this topic to assess the efficacy, safety, and potential complications of the two procedures. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Ovid and Scopus to identify eligible suitable studies until May 2022. All studies comparing LU vs PCNL in large proximal ureteral stones were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 software was used to analyze statistical significance. A total of nine publications involving 933 patients (LU 465; PCNL 468) were included, of which 4 were randomized control trails (RCTs) and 5 were non-RCTs. The meta-analysis of available data showed that compared with PCNL, LU had a higher initial stone-free rate (OR = 3.26; p = 0.004), but longer operative time (WMD = 35.08 min; p = 0.0003). However, the final stone-free rate (OR = 2.08; p = 0.07) and length of hospital stay (WMD = 0.32 d; p = 0.48) were comparable between the two groups. Meanwhile, LU had a lower transfusion rate (OR = 0.13; p = 0.007) than PCNL. There was no significant difference in terms of complications (OR = 0.97; p = 0.84), Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3 complications (OR = 1.03; p = 0.93), auxiliary procedures (OR = 0.44; p = 0.08), or ureteral stenosis (OR = 0.24; p = 0.13) between LU and PCNL. Our meta-analysis revealed that LU is a safe and feasible option for large proximal ureteral stones with a higher initial stone-free rate and lower transfusion rate compared with PCNL.

Modern Methods of Treatment for Proximal Ureterolithiasis

Urolithiasis is a disease characterized by the formation of stones in the urinary tract. According to statistics, SCC causes about 30% of hospitalizations in the urology department. Treatment of SCC is divided into conservative and operative. The choice of method depends on age, clinical course of the disease, general condition of the patient, anatomical and functional condition of the kidneys and the size of the localization of the calculus. Methods of treatment of SC have changed significantly in recent years. Due to the technical achievements of the method of open ureterolithotomy, which was once the standard method of treatment of so-called «complicated» concretions of the ureter, evolved into a laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and with the advent of ultrasonic and laser lithotriptors – began the newest era of minimally invasive urology– extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and endourology: antegrade percutaneous ureterolithotripsy, retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy and flexible retrograde uretherolithotripsy (FURS). The purpose of the work – on the basis of scientific literature to assess the effectiveness, safety and profitability of modern methods of surgical treatment for proximal ureterolithiasis. During the scientific research, attention was paid to the following parameters: stone free rate (SFR), postoperative pain level, need for painkillers, number of postoperative bed-days, presence of postoperative fever, hemoglobin level, need for blood transfusion, and on the economic component during the implementation of a technique. The principles of treatment of patients with large proximal ureterolithiasis are described in the clinical guidelines of the European and American Associations of Urologists. However, for example, which of the 3 proposed methods of treatment of large proximal ureterolithiasis to choose – there is no consensus from the world urological community. Percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy is the preferred method of choice in patients with large proximal ureteral stones that cannot be removed by contact or extracorporeal ureterolithotripsy, characterized by a high level of absence of stones and minimal complications, optimal post operative and high indicators of economic attractiveness of this technique.

The Surgical Technique of Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

The mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) has become a versatile tool to remove kidney stones >2 cm, lower pole stones >1 cm, renal stones previously unresponsive to shockwave therapy or inaccessible by ureteroscopy (within a caliceal diverticulum), stones within complex urinary tracts (urinary diversions, transplanted kidney, and horseshoe kidneys), and large impacted proximal ureteral stones. After positioning in either the supine or prone position, a cystoscopy is performed to place an open-ended catheter, occlusion balloon, or Accordian device into the collecting system. A foley catheter is placed in the bladder. An ultrasound with a curvilinear probe is used to survey the kidney and guide access into the collecting system with an 18 g percutaneous needle. Once access is obtained, a small 0.5 cm skin incision is made and the percutaneous tract is dilated over a wire. A 16.5F metallic or self-dilating suctioning access sheath is positioned with fluoroscopic guidance. A 12F rigid mini-PCNL nephroscope is used to evaluate the collecting system. Once a calculus is observed, options for stone fragmentation include a lithotripter with ultrasonic and ballistic energy, or laser lithotripsy using holmium or thulium laser fibers. Flexible ureteroscopy can be considered to ensure clearance of the collecting system. A 6F ureteral stent can be placed in either a retrograde or antegrade approach for drainage. The tract is sealed using Surgiflo hemostatic matrix with thrombin. Guidelines for postoperative care and troubleshooting techniques for mini-PCNL are reviewed along with the surgical steps in the accompanying video (Supplementary Video S1). There are few randomized trials comparing mini-PCNL with standard PCNL and ureteroscopy. There is some evidence to suggest a difference in transfusion rates comparing mini- and standard PCNL, as well as differences in stone-free rates when comparing mini-PCNL with ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones.

The Role of Antegrade Ureterolithotripsy in the Treatment of Large Impacted Proximal Ureteral Stones

The objective: optimization of approaches to the choice of endoscopic ureterolithorpsy method in the presence of large stones of the proximal ureter. Materials and methods. For the period 2017–2020 y. the study included 136 patients with large stones of the proximal ureter, who were performed one of two methods of ureterolithotripsy: rULT (group I) or m-aULT (group II). In group I 73 (53,7%) patients were operated, in group II – 63 (46,3%) patients. The age of patients ranged from 18 to 81 years, the average age was 52,7 years (54±10,5). The age of patients in group II ranged from 25 to 77 (63±10,5) years; the size of a concrement from 10 to 20 (14±3,5 mm). In group I, the age of patients ranged from 18 to 91 (63,5±10 years); the size of a concrement from 7 to 20 (12±5,5 mm). Results. The average time of m-AULT was 58,5±15,4 min, while the status of stone free was achieved in all 100% of patients. The operation ended with the installation of nephrostomy drainage in 11 (17,5%) cases, nephrostomy drainage and internal ureteral JJ-stent – in 33 (52,4%), in 19 (30,2%) cases – tubeless drainage method with the installation of ureteral stent. And the total percentage of stenting in staghorn stones of the proximal ureter, after lithotripsy and litholapaxy was 82,6% (52 patients). RULT surgery in 92% (67 patients) of cases ended with drainage of the kidney by JJ-stent, in 6 (8%) patients the operation ended without drainage. Conclusions. Analyzing the results, it was noted that the antegrade approach is a safe and effective method of treatment for proximal ureterolithiasis in the group with large stones of the proximal ureter, where the effectiveness of RULT (SFR up to 86,3±3,9%) is significantly inferior to AULT, and minimizing the size of instruments m-aULT) reduces the number and degree of complications associated with the size of the coiled tract, while providing a high level of SFR (96,8±4,4%).

Ureteroscopy-assisted puncture for ultrasonography-guided renal access significantly improves overall treatment outcomes in endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery.

To assess the impact and availability of ureteroscopy-assisted puncture for percutaneous renal access during ultrasonography-guided miniaturized (mini)-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for large volume renal and/or proximal ureteral stones. We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study for urolithiasis treatment. Data from a total of 313 patients who underwent mini-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery to treat renal and/or ureteral stones between January 2016 and April 2020 were collected. We compared the outcomes between ultrasonography-guided mini-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery with and without ureteroscopy-assisted puncture (ureteroscopy-assisted puncture(+) group [n=126] and ureteroscopy-assisted puncture(-) group [n=187] group, respectively). The primary outcome was requirement for additional surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were stone-free rate, complications and total procedure, fluoroscopy, hospital stay, and postoperative ureteral stent placement durations. The ureteroscopy-assisted puncture(+) group had a lower additional surgical intervention rate and a higher stone-free rate immediately after and 3months after surgery than the ureteroscopy-assisted puncture(-) group (5.6% vs 19.7%, P<0.001; 82.5% vs 65.8%, P=0.001; 59.5% vs 44.6%, P=0.011). The median total procedure, fluoroscopy, and postoperative ureteral stent placement durations were 18min, 3min, and 5days shorter, respectively, in the ureteroscopy-assisted puncture(+) group. Multivariate analyses showed that ureteroscopy-assisted puncture was associated with a decreased risk of additional surgical intervention (odds ratio 0.31, P=0.011) and postoperative infection (odds ratio 0.34, P=0.003) and decreased total procedure (estimate=-11min; P=0.011), fluoroscopy (estimate=-3min; P=0.034), and postoperative ureteral stent placement (estimate=-8days; P=0.011) durations. Female patients and those with smaller stone volumes or without hydronephrosis were identified as ideal ureteroscopy-assisted puncture candidates. Ureteroscopy-assisted puncture during mini-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery could provide favorable surgical outcomes, especially in female patients without collecting system obstruction.

Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm.

Background:The optimal treatment for large impacted proximal ureteral stones remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and potential complications of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones with size greater than 15 mm.Methods:A total of 268 patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm who received MPCNL or RPLU procedures were enrolled consecutively between January 2014 and January 2019. Data on surgical outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed.Results:Demographic and ureteral stone characteristics found between these two groups were not significantly different. The surgical success rate (139/142, 97.9% vs. 121/126, 96.0%, P = 0.595) and stone-free rate after 1 month (139/142, 97.9% vs. 119/126, 94.4%, P = 0.245) of RPLU group were marginally higher than that of the MPCNL group, but there was no significant difference. There was no significant difference in the drop of hemoglobin between the two groups (0.8 ± 0.6 vs. 0.4 ± 0. 2 g/dL, P = 0.621). The mean operative time (68.2 ± 12.5 vs. 87.2 ± 16.8 min, P = 0.041), post-operative analgesics usage (2/121, 1.7% vs. 13/139, 9.4%, P = 0.017), length of hospital stay after surgery (2.2 ± 0.6 vs. 4.8 ± 0.9 days, P < 0.001), double J stent time (3.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8 days, P = 0.027), time of catheterization (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 days, P < 0.001), and time of drainage tube (2.3 ± 0.3 vs. 4.6 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001) of MPCNL group were significantly shorter than that of the RPLU group. The complication rate was similar between the two groups (20/121, 16.5% vs. 31/139, 22.3%, P = 0.242).Conclusions:MPCNL and RPLU have similar surgical success and stone clearance in treating impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm, while patients undergoing MPCNL had a lower post-operative pain rate and a faster recovery.

Comparison of antegrade and retrograde ureterolithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundAntegrade percutaneous ureterolithotripsy (URSL) could be a treatment option for large and/or impacted proximal ureteral stones, which are difficult to treat. To review the current approach and treatment outcomes and to compare the efficacy of retrograde and antegrade URSL for large proximal ureteral stones, we evaluated the unique perspectives of both surgical modalities.MethodsThis systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed in July 2020. Articles on human studies and treatment of ureteral stones with URSL were extracted from the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the Japan Medical s Society databases without any language restrictions. The risks of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) were assessed using the Cochrane risk of tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies- of Interventions tool, respectively.ResultsA total of 10 studies, including seven RCTs and three non-RCTs, were selected for the analysis; 433 and 420 cases underwent retrograde and antegrade URSL, respectively. The stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly higher in antegrade URSL than in retrograde URSL (SFR ratio: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.12–1.22; P<0.001), while the hospital stay was significantly longer in antegrade URSL than in retrograde URSL (standardized mean difference: 2.56, 95% CI: 0.67–4.46; P=0.008). There were no significant differences in the operation time and the overall complication rate between the two approaches.ConclusionsDespite the heterogeneity of data and bias limitations, this latest evidence reflects real practice data, which may be useful for decision making.

Efficacy and safety of various surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stone ≥10mm: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACTPurpose Various surgical options are available for large proximal ureteral stones, such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU). However, the best option remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis comparing various surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stones ≥10mm to address current research deficiencies.Materials and methods We searched PubMed, Ovid, Scopus (up to June 2019), as well as citation lists to identify eligible comparative studies. All clinical studies including patients comparing surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stones ≥10mm were included. A standard network meta-analysis was performed with Stata SE 14 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) software to generate comparative statistics. The quality was assessed with level of evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software.Results A total of 25 studies including 2.888 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Network meta-analyses indicated that LU and PCNL had better stone-free rates and auxiliary procedures. PCNL could result in major complications and severe bleeding. In initial stone-free rate, final stone-free rate, and auxiliary procedures results, SUCRA ranking was: LU> PCNL> URSL> ESWL. In Clavien Dindo score ≥3 complications, SUCRA ranking was: LU> ESWL> URSL> PCNL. In fever, SUCRA ranking was: ESWL> LU> URSL> PCNL. In transfusion, SUCRA ranking was: LU> URSL> ESWL> PCNL. In Cluster analysis, LU had the highest advantages and acceptable side effects. Considering the traumatic nature of PCNL, it should not be an option over URSL. ESWL had the lowest advantages.Conclusions LU have the potential to be considered as the first treatment choice of proximal ureteral stone ≥10mm.