Large Proximal Ureteral Stones Research Articles

Ureteroscopy vs laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteric stone: a randomised trial.

To compare the outcomes of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) with retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RLU) for large proximal ureteric stones. A prospective randomised trial was conducted from January 2018 through December 2022 including patients with impacted proximal ureteric stones of 15-25 mm. Patients underwent fURS or RLU. Primary outcome was the stone-free rate. Demographic data, stone features, and complications rates were also compared between groups. A total of 64 patients were enrolled, 32 in each group. The mean impacted stone time was similar between groups, as well as stone size (17 mm) and stone density (>1000 Hounsfield Units). The ureteric stone-free rates between the two groups (93.7% in fURS vs 96.8% in RLU; odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.72 to 3.17; P = 0.554), and overall success rates, which take into account residual fragments in the kidney (84.3% in fURS vs 93.7% in RLU; OR 1.02, 95% CI -0.69 to 2.74; P = 0.23), were similar. Operative time was also not statistically significantly different between groups (median 80 vs 82 min; P = 0.101). There was no difference in hospital length of stay. Retropulsion rate was higher with fURS (65.6% vs 3.1%; p < 0.001). Residual hydronephrosis (34.3% each group) and complication rates did no differ according to treatment. Flexible URS and RLU are both highly efficient and present low morbidity for large impacted proximal ureteric stone treatment. RLU is not superior to fURS.

Propensity score matched comparison of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of large impacted proximal ureteral stones with long-term follow-up.

Impacted proximal ureteral stones (IPUS) present challenging clinical scenarios due to their persistent nature and associated complications. While ureterorenoscopy (URS) lithotripsy is recommended as the primary treatment, controversies exist regarding the optimal management of such stones. In this retrospective analysis, we compared the operative outcomes and long-term results of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for IPUS larger than 15mm. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to mitigate potential selection biases. Following PSM, 83 patients in each cohort exhibited comparable baseline characteristics. LU demonstrated a superior surgical success rate (100% vs. 96.4%, p = 0.244) and significantly lower perioperative hemoglobin decline (0.6 ± 0.4g/dL vs. 1.5 ± 0.7g/dL, p = 0.036) compared to PCNL. Additionally, LU exhibited a higher stone-free rate after 2 months (100% vs. 91.6%, p = 0.043), but a longer duration of catheterization (7.4 ± 1.2 days vs. 3.5 ± 2.2 days vs., p = 0.011). Conversely, PCNL was associated with a higher incidence of total complications (21.7% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.033) and stone recurrence during a mean period of 40-month follow-up (20.5% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.027). Transperitoneal LU and PCNL represent effective interventions for managing IPUS exceeding 15mm. Notably, LU emerges as a preferable option over PCNL, offering superior stone clearance rates, reduced perioperative complications, and lower recurrence rates.

Comparison of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, retrograde flexible ureteroscopy, and mini-percutaneous antegrade flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large (≥ 15mm) impacted proximal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized trial.

The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TPLU), retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (R-fURS), and mini-percutaneous antegrade flexible ureteroscopy (A-fURS) for treating large (≥ 15mm) impacted proximal ureteral stones. A total of 105 adult patients were randomized into 3 equal groups: group A (35) patients underwent TPLU, group B (35) patients underwent R-fURS, and group C (35) patients underwent A-fURS. The initial stone-free rate was 100%, 68.6%, and 80% in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The mean operative time (OT) was (85.0 ± 7.57min) in group A, (61.0 ± 8.21min) in group B, and (89.57 ± 15.12min) in group C. The three groups were comparable concerning the overall complications. R-fURS is a less invasive modality for treating such stones; however, it is associated with a lower SFR and a higher rate of auxiliary procedures. Both TPLU and miniperc A-fURS are effective and valuable alternatives for treating large impacted proximal ureteric stones.

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 &amp;lt;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 &amp;lt;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.

COMPARISON OF SUCCESS OF EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY (ESWL) AND LASER URETERORENOSCOPY IN PROXIMAL URETERIC STONES

Managing ureteral stones to achieve complete stone clearance with minimal patient morbidity involves several therapeutic approaches. The commonly used methods include extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and open ureterolithotomy. However, definitive evidence-based options for managing large proximal ureteral stones are lacking. Objective: To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and laser ureterorenoscopy (URS) success rates in treating proximal ureteric stones. Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Urology &amp; Renal Transplantation at Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur, from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. One hundred four patients, aged 20 to 60, with single proximal ureteric stones measuring 8-15 mm, were included. Patients with pyonephrosis, sepsis, bleeding disorders, solitary kidney, previous open ureterolithotomy, chronic renal failure, proteinuria, recurrent urinary tract infections, congenital urinary tract obstruction, bladder outflow obstruction, chronic liver disease, or a history of chronic drug usage were excluded. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group A underwent URS lithotripsy with DJ stent placement, while Group B underwent ESWL with DJ stent placement. A single surgeon performed all procedures. Pre-operative antibiotics and analgesics were administered to all patients. Stone clearance was assessed two weeks post-procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate methods, with a p-value ≤ 0.05 considered significant. Results: The mean age of patients in Group A was 37.52 ± 11.20 years, and in Group B was 36.73 ± 10.57 years. Most patients (75, 72.12%) were between 20 and 40. Out of the 104 patients, 63 (60.58%) were male, and 41 (39.42%) were female, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.7:1. Complete stone clearance was achieved in 44 (84.62%) patients in Group A (URS group) and 30 (57.69%) patients in Group B (ESWL group), with a statistically significant p-value of 0.002. The study concluded that the stone clearance rate after laser ureterorenoscopy (URS) is significantly higher than extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for proximal ureteric stones.

Safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy for the treatment of large impacted proximal ureteralstones

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. Improvements in ureteroscopic technology increased the efficacy and safety of ureteroscopy (URS) as a first-line treatment in large impacted stones in the proximal ureter. The objective of this retrospective study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of URS for the management of impacted proximal ureteral stones ≥ 10 mm. Material and methods: The medical records of 700 patients with ureteral stones, who underwent ureteroscopy and intracorporeal lithotripsy between January 2016 and Аpril 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. 179 patients had impacted stones ≥ 10 mm located in the proximal ureter – 125 (70%) were stones sized 10÷15 mm and 54 (30%) – stones ≥ 15 mm. URS was performed with 8.6 or 6.4Fr semirigid ureteroscope and Holmium laser. Flexible URS was performed in cases with tortuous ureter or stone retropulsion. Data on patients‘ preoperative characterstics, stone-free rates, operating times, intra- and postoperative complications were analyzed. Results: Patients’mean age was 54.1±12.3 years and mean stone size – 14.7±.4.8 mm. 30 % of the patients had previous unsuccessful shock- wave lithotripsy of the stone. Mean operative time was 45.1±15.7 min min and overall success rate – 85.3%. 66.2% of patients were treated with semirigid URS and 33.8% – with flexible URS. On subgroup analysis patients with stones 10÷15 mm and patients with stones ≥ 15 mm had similar preoperative characteristics. Success rate after a single procedure was higher and operating times significantly shorter in the subgroup of stones sized 10÷15 mm (87.1% vs 71.3%, p=0.159 and 41.3±12.9 vs 53.3±21.3 min, p=0.040,respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between the two subgroups in intraoperative stent JJ placement (34.1% vs 50.0%, p=0.400), stone retropulsion (21.3% vs 23.1%, p=0.847) and overall postoperative complications rate (9.3% vs 0%, p=0.161). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that URS is a safe and effective treatment for management of patients with large impacted proximal ureteral stones. Larger stone size was a predictor of lower success rate after a single procedure.

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&lt;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 &gt; 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&lt;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.