Large Proximal Ureteral Stones Research Articles

Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing ureterolithotripsy (URS) with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) techniques for the management of large proximal ureteral stones (diameter greater than 10 mm). Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify suitable studies until November 2016. We used weighted mean difference to measure operative time and hospital stay, OR to measure stone free rate (SFR), and complication rate. Subgroup analyses were assessed for heterogeneity. Results: Fourteen publications strictly met our eligibility criteria of which 7 were randomized control studies (RCTs) and 7 non-RCTs. Meta-analysis of extractable data showed that LU and PCNL had higher SFR than URS. URS led to a similar hospital stay like that of LU. However, it had a shorter operative time and lower complication rate than LU. When we compared URS with PCNL, we found a shorter hospital stay in the URS group. However, there was no significant difference in terms of the operative time and complication rate between URS and PCNL. Conclusion: URS should be considered standard therapy for treating large proximal ureteral stones.

REASONS AND TREATMENT FOR URETERAL AVULSION

From 2010 to 2016 years we obsreved 8 patients with ureteral avulsion after endoscopic surgeries. All patients were men, their age ranged from 50 to 71 years. In all patients the ureter was damaged during ureteroscopy with lithotripsy and lithoextraction. Of the 8 patients, two had proximal ureteral avulsion between upper and middle thirds, four had ureteral avulsion 4 cm away from the pyeloureteral junction , two had had complete pyeloureteral junction avulsion. In 7 cases trauma of ureter occured at other hospitals. These patients were underwent revision of retroperitoneal space and drain for kidney by nephrostomy (6) and ureterocutaneostomy (1). One case occurred at our department and this patient was underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy with autotransplantation. The patient with ureterocutaneostomy was treated by nephrovesical bypass. In 6 patients with extended ureteral strictures we performed ileoureteroplasty. Results of reconstructive surgeries and nephrovesical bypass were successful in all patients. No intra- and postoperative complications. Mean operative time during uleoureteroplasty was 180 min, laparoscopic nephrectomy with autotransplantation – 210 min, nephrovesical bypass – 110 min. Ureteral avulsion often associated with ureterosopy in patients with large impacted proximal ureteral stones. In most cases after these injuries were diagnosed extended ureteral stricture that requires performing for autotransplantation or ileoureteroplasty.

047 - Percutaneous nephrostomy insertion followed by laser ureterolithotripsy versus immediate laser ureterolithotripsy for the management of large impacted proximal ureteral stones

047 - Percutaneous nephrostomy insertion followed by laser ureterolithotripsy versus immediate laser ureterolithotripsy for the management of large impacted proximal ureteral stones

Large proximal ureteral stones: Ideal treatment modality?

Background and Purpose:Ideal treatment modality for patients with large impacted proximal ureteral stone remains controversial. We compared laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy (Lap-TPUL) and semirigid ureteroscopy for large proximal ureteric stones to evaluate their efficacy and safety.Patients and Methods:From November 2012 to December 2014, we enrolled 122 patients with large (≥1.5 cm) proximal ureteral stone in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group A (60 patients), retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy using a semirigid ureteroscope; Group B (62 patients), transperitoneal LU (Lap-TPUL).Results:The overall stone-free rate was 71.6% and 93.5% for Group A and Group B respectively (P = 0.008). Auxiliary procedure rate was higher in Group A than in Group B (27.3% vs. 5.6%). The complication rate was 11.2% in Group B versus 25% in Group A. Mean procedure time was higher in laparoscopy group as compared to ureterorenoscopy (URS) groups (84.07 ± 16.80 vs. 62.82 ± 12.71 min). Hospital stay was 4.16 ± 0.67 days in laparoscopy group and 1.18 ± 0.38 days in URS group (P < 0.0001).Conclusion:Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy is a minimally invasive, safe and effective treatment modality and should be recommended to all patients of impacted large proximal stones, which are not amenable to URS or extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy or as a primary modality of choice especially if patient is otherwise candidate for open surgery.

Retrograde versus Antegrade Approach for the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones.

Objective. To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of retrograde versus antegrade ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients with proximal ureteral stones >15 mm, treated in our institution from January 2011 to January 2016. Intraoperative parameters, postoperative outcomes, and complications were recorded and compared between the two techniques. Results. Our analysis included 57 patients. Thirty-four patients (59.6%) underwent retrograde and 23 patients (40.4%) underwent antegrade ureteroscopy. There was no significant difference in patients' demographics and stone characteristics between the groups. Stone-free rate was significantly higher (p = 0.033) in the antegrade group (100%) compared to retrograde one (82.4%). Fluoroscopy time, procedure duration, and length of hospitalization were significantly (p < 0.001) lower in retrograde approach. On the other hand, the need for postoperative stenting was significantly lower in the antegrade group (p < 0.001). No difference was found between the groups (p = 0.745) regarding postoperative complications. Conclusions. Antegrade ureteroscopy is an efficient and safe option for the management of large proximal ureteral stones. It may achieve high stone-free rates compared to retrograde ureteroscopy with the drawback of longer operative time, fluoroscopy time, and length of hospitalization.

Flexible ureteroscopy versus laparoscopy for the treatment of patients who initially presented with obstructive pyelonephritis.

Objective:To compare the safety and effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) with transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TPLU) in cases of obstructive pyelonephritis secondary to large proximal ureteral stones.Methods:A series of 42 patients presenting with obstructive pyelonephritis due to proximal ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm were included from April 2006 to February 2015 in this comparative study. After drainage of pyonephrosis and resolution of sepsis, 22 patients treated with TPLU (Group I), and 20 patients were treated with F-URS (Group II). Preoperative patient and stone characteristics, procedure-related parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed for each group.Results:It was seen that both methods were effective in the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. However TPLU provided a higher stone- free rate (100% vs 80%. p=0.043) and lower retreatment rate. There was no difference between the groups for the operative time and complication rate. On the other hand, patients treated with F-URS had less postoperative pain (p=0.008), a shorter hospital stay (p<0.001) and a faster return to daily activities (p<0.001).Conclusions:The results of our study show that both F-URS and TPLU are safe and effective surgical procedures for treatment of large proximal ureteral stones after controlling obstructive pyelonephritis. However, TPLU has a higher stone-free rate with comparable operating time and complication rate as compared to F-URS. On the other hand F-URS has the advantages of less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay and faster return to daily activities.

Flexible Ureteroscopy versus Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones >15 mm: A Single Surgeon Experience

Objective: To compare safety and effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (L-RU) in treatment of proximal ureteral stones larger than 15 mm. Materials and Methods: This study included 103 patients treated with L-RU (Group I), and 80 patients treated with F-URS (Group II) due to proximal ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm, in a single center. Patients' characteristics and procedure-related parameters including success rate, operation time, hospital stay, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, auxiliary procedures, and complications were compared between Groups I and II. Results: It was seen that both methods were effective in the treatment of large ureteral stones; however, R-LU provided a higher stone-free rate (100 vs. 87.5%), a lower complication rate (10.6 vs. 23.7%), and a shorter operation time (65.4 vs. 75.1 min). On the other hand, patients treated with F-URS had less postoperative pain, a shorter hospital stay, a faster return to daily activities. Conclusions: For treatment of large proximal ureteral stones, L-RU provides significantly higher success and lower retreatment rate compared with F-URS. Our results also indicate that R-LU, which has been regarded as an invasive procedure is not as invasive as it is thought to be, and it must be kept in mind that F-URS may cause complications despite its noninvasive nature.

Our Experience with Retroperitoneal Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Ureterolithotomy

Aim: To report our experience with retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) ureterolithotomy for the management of large proximal ureteral stones. Patients and Methods: From July 2011 to April 2012, 20 patients underwent retroperitoneal LESS ureterolithotomy. The indications for the operation were impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 15 mm. A reusable elastic single-port device with 3 working channels was inserted through the 2.5-cm incision at the midpoint between the costal arch and iliac crest on the mid-axillary line. A rigid 10-mm 30° extra-long laparoscope was introduced for monitoring, and a combination of lengthened pre-bent and conventional laparoscopic instruments was used for handling. The surgical procedure was similar to conventional retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Results: Retroperitoneal LESS ureterolithotomy was completed in all of the patients. The mean stone size was 18.8 mm (range 16-28). The mean operative time was 108 min (range 75-140). Significant bleeding was not observed, and no major intraoperative complications occurred in any of the patients. The mean hospital stay was 4.4 days (range 3-7). Conclusions: Retroperitoneal LESS ureterolithotomy, using a reusable elastic single-port device, is technically feasible and safe, and the combination of conventional and pre-bent laparoscopic instruments represents an attractive option for retroperitoneal LESS.

Efficacy of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for the treatment of large proximal ureteric stones and its impact on renal function

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for the management of large proximal ureteric stones and the impact of this treatment on postoperative renal function.MethodsThe data of 12 patients (7 men and 5 women; mean age, 68.5 ± 8.9 years) with large pyeloureteral junction (2 cases) and upper ureteral (10 cases) stones (25.3 ± 7.4 mm) that had undergone retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy were reviewed. Renal function was analyzed by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and renal scintigraphy using 99mTc-mercaptoacetyltriglycine (99mTc-MAG3) before and 3 months after surgery.ResultsThe mean operative time was 129.5 ± 21.4 minutes, with a mean blood loss of 64.4 ± 78.2 mL. The mean duration of hospital stay after surgery was 6.4 ± 2.7 days, and the mean duration of stenting was 7.2 ± 1.7 weeks. A stone clearance rate of 100% was achieved, and no patient developed ureteric stricture. 99mTc-MAG3 scintigraphy showed that laparoscopic removal of calculi did not affect renal function, but did improve ureteral occlusion.ConclusionsRetroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy is a safe and effective treatment option for reducing ureteral obstruction in select patients with large proximal ureteric stones.

The comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stones

In this study we compare the success rates and complication rates of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), laparoscopic, and ureteroscopic approaches for large (between 1 and 2 cm) proximal ureteral stones. In total, 151 patients with ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm in diameter were randomized into 3 groups (52 SWL, 51 laparoscopy and 48 retrograde intrarenal surgery [RIRS]). The groups were compared for stone size, success rates, and complication rates using the modified Clavien grading system. Stone burden of the groups were similar (p = 0.36). The success rates were 96%, 81% and 79%, respectively in the laparoscopy, SWL, and ureteroscopy groups. The success rate in laparoscopy group was significantly higher (p < 0.05). When these groups were compared for complication rates, RIRS seemed to be the group with the lowest complication rates (4.11%) (p < 0.05). SWL and laparoscopy seem to have similar rates of complication (7.06% and 7.86%, respectively, p = 0.12). To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the results of laparoscopy, SWL and RIRS in ureteral stones. Our results showed that in management of patients with upper ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm, laparoscopy is the most successful method based on its stone-free rates and acceptable complication rates. However, the limitations of our study are lack of hospital stay and cost-effectiveness data. Also, studies conducted on larger populations should support our findings. When a less invasive method is the only choice, SWL and flexible ureterorenoscopy methods have similar success rates. RIRS, however, has a lower complication rate than the other approaches.

Experience of Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Treatment of Large Impacted Proximal Ureteral Stones

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mini- percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 163 patients who underwent mini-PCNL between January 2006 and August 2010. Mean age was 48.6 years and mean stone size was 18.4 mm. Hydronephrosis and/or hydroureterosis appeared in all patients. In the prone position, percutaneous access (16-Fr sheath) was established by placement of an access needle into the intended calyx under fluoroscopic guidance or combined with ultrasound guidance for complete obstruction by stones while the contrast agent cannot transit. Pneumatic or ultrasonic probes were used throughout ureterorenoscopy for lithotripsy. The ureteral stents and nephrostomy tube were placed at the end of the procedure. Mean drop in hemoglobin, operative time, success rate, hospital stay, and complications were assessed. Results: Mini-PCNL operations were performed successfully in all patients. Mean operation time was 37 min. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.6 days. All cases were followed up for 6-20 months. No major complications like hemorrhage, perforation or organic injury were noted during the operation or postoperatively. The stone-free rate in all patients was 95.7%. Calculus had no recurrence during the follow-up period. Hydronephrosis and hydroureterosis disappeared or were relieved. Conclusions: Mini-PCNL is a safe and effective therapy for large impacted proximal ureteral stones.

Editorial Comment

The management of proximal ureteral stones has traditionally been regarded as challenging by urologists. 1 Wu C.F. Shee J.J. Lin W.Y. et al. Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol. 2004; 172: 1899-1902 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (134) Google Scholar Thus, debate still exists concerning the optimal treatment option for these patients. For many years, we favored ESWL as the treatment of choice for these patients. However, with increasing experience in ureteroscopic techniques, followed by improved efficacy and technology, the trend toward URS has increased significantly in recent years. Two-step Minipercutaneous Ureterolithotripsy Under Multimodal Analgesia for Complicated Impacted Calculi in Proximal UreterUrologyVol. 81Issue 6PreviewTo suggest minipercutaneous ureterolithotripsy using the mininephroscope as an alternative process for impacted stones of the upper ureter because these stones can be challenging to treat and can produce severe symptoms. Full-Text PDF ReplyUrologyVol. 81Issue 6PreviewIndeed, the management of proximal ureteral stones can become quite challenging, even with uncomplicated stones. Our effort was to demonstrate our experience with a substantial subgroup of such cases—those presenting with impacted stones, irrespective of whether a previous stone procedure had been undertaken. Full-Text PDF

Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy

To provide appropriate evidence for treatment planning of patients with an impacted proximal ureteral stones ≥1.5 cm in size, by analyzing the therapeutic outcomes for those undergoing minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy and retrograde ureterolithotripsy. From September 2010 to November 2011, eligible patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones ≥1.5 cm in size referred to our institute were considered for this study. The closed envelope method was used to randomize the enrolled patients to mini-PCNL (30) or retrograde ureterolithotripsy (29). The efficiency quotient (EQ) was calculated to specifically address the efficiency for both the techniques. All preoperative and postoperative data for both groups were recorded. The initial stone-free rate was 93.3% in the mini-PCNL group and 41.4% in the URSL group (p < 0.001). However, the overall stone-free rate at the 1-month follow-up visit after initial treatment was 100% in the mini-PCNL group and 89.7% in the URSL group (p = 0.07). The EQs for the mini-PCNL and URSL groups were 0.83 and 0.50, respectively. Our study shows that mini-PCNL removal of large impacted proximal ureteral calculi can achieve higher stone-free rates and safe.

Large impacted upper ureteral calculi: A comparative study between retrograde ureterolithotripsy and percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy in the modified lateral position

Context:The treatment for patients with large impacted proximal ureteral stone remains controversial, especially at institutions with limited resources.Aim:The aim of this study is to compare and to evaluate the outcome and complications of two main treatment procedures for impacted proximal ureteral calculi, retrograde ureterolithotripsy (URS), and percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy (Perc-URS).Settings and Design:Our inclusion criteria were solitary, radiopaque calculi, >15 mm in size in a functioning renal unit. Only those patients in whom the attempt at passing a guidewire or catheter beyond the calculus failed were included in this study.Patients and Methods:Between January 2007 and July 2011, a total of 52 patients (13 women and 39 men) with large impacted upper-ureteral calculi >15 mm and meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. Of these, Perc-URS was done in 22 patients (group 1) while retrograde ureteroscopy was performed in 30 patients (group 2). We analyzed operative time, incidence of complications during and after surgery, the number of postoperative recovery days, median total costs associated per patient per procedure, and the stone-free rate immediately after 5 days and after 1 month.Statistical Analysis Used:Bivariate analysis used the Student t-test and the Mann-Whitney test to compare two means and Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests to compare two percentages. The significance level was set at 0.05.Results:The mean age was 42.3 years (range 22-69). The mean stone sizes (mm) were 34 ± 1.2 and 29.3 ± 1.8 mm in group 1 and 2, respectively. In the Perc-URS group, 21 patients (95.45%) had complete calculus clearance through a single tract in one session of percutaneous surgery, whereas in the URS group, only 20 patients (66.7%) had complete stone clearance (P = 0.007). The mean operative time was higher in the Perc-URS group compared to group 2 (66.5 ± 21.7 vs. 52.13 ± 17.3 min, respectively; P = 0.013). Complications encountered in group 1 included transient postoperative fever (2 pts) and simple urine outflow (2 pts). Ten patients (33%) of group 2 experienced failure: Migration to the kidney (3 pts), ureteral perforation (2 pts), tortuosity of the ureter (2 pts), and epithelial polyps (2 patients). Group 1 patients had an average visual analog (VAS) pain score of 47 mm compared with 31 mm in group 2 patients. The mean hospital stay (days) in group 1 was higher than the group 2 (2.27 ± 0.8 vs. 1.67 ± 0.6, respectively; P = 0.01). The mean analgesia requirement for group 1 (paracetamol chlorhydrate + codeine 12 ± 3 g) was significantly more compared with group B (6.8 ± 2 g) (P < 0.01). The difference in average blood loss between the two groups was not statistically significant. Total costs was slightly higher in group 1 but the difference was not statistically significant between the two groups (15000 vs. 13400 MDH respectively; P > 0.05). After 1 month, the stone free-rate remained higher in group 1 (95.5% vs. 66.7%, respectively; P = 0.012).Conclusions:In our series, Perc-URS is a safe and efficient treatment option for proximal ureteral stone, especially when the stone size is superior to 15 mm with the presence of moderate or severe hydronephrosis.

Ultrasonography-guided PNL in comparison with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the management of large proximal ureteral stone

The aim of study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of PNL in comparison with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LUL) in proximal ureteral stones larger than 1 cm. A total of 80 patients who were candidates for treatment of large ureteral stones in our urology center were enrolled in the study between September 2004 and September 2008. By using patient randomization, they were assigned into two forty-patient groups (PNL and LUL). After evaluating the patients with laboratory tests and IVP, PNL was performed under sonography guidance in the prone position or the patients were submitted to classic laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LUL) transperitoneally. All patients underwent postoperative assessments including KUB and ultrasonography. A hundred-percent success was achieved in both groups. The mean age of the patients were 39.4 (16-63) and 35.2 (18-57) years old in PNL and LUL groups, respectively. The mean stone size in PNL group was 14.2 (10-25) mm and in LUL group was 13.5 (10-28) mm. The duration of the operations were 54.35 (50-82) minutes, and 82.15 (73-180) minutes (P < 0.0001); and the average hospital stay days were 2.6 (2-5) and 3.5 (3-8) days (p = 0.011) in groups PNL and LUL, accordingly. The mean Hb decrease in PNL group was 0.9mg/dL and in LUL group was 0.4mg/dL (p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences in terms of blood transfusion, fever, ICU admission, and prolonged urinary leakage were detected in both groups. According to our study, percutaneous nephrolithotomy under ultrasonography guidance is comparable with the laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones larger than 1 cm.

Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy for large ureteric stones

Objectives:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy for management of large proximal ureteric stones.Materials and Methods:Medical records of patients who underwent laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy for proximal ureteral stones ≥2 cm were reviewed retrospectively. Patients’ characteristics, stone characteristics, perioperative and follow-up data were studied. Patients with stones <2 cm in size, previous transperitoneal surgical procedure, or follow-up duration <6 months were excluded from the study.Results:Twelve patients (mean age = 52.9 ± 12 years) with large upper ureteric stones (mean stone largest diameter = 39 ± 13 mm) were included. Nine patients had single stone, 2 patients had two stones, and 1 patient had large impacted stone with 2 small stones floating above. Mean operative time was 107 ± 49.5 min with mean blood loss of 60.5 ± 19.2 cc. Mean total pain score was 38.4 ± 5.5 (100 point scale) and mean time till resuming oral intake was 3.6 ± 0.5 h. Mean duration of hospital stay was 2.6 ± 1.4 days and mean duration of stenting was 7.3 ± 2 weeks. Throughout a mean duration of follow-up of 14.8 ± 7.6 months, 100% stone clearance rate was achieved with no recurrence. One patient developed a ureteric stricture treated by laser endoureterotomy and stenting for 6 weeks and responded without re-stricture formation.Conclusion:Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy is a safe and effective approach for selected patients with large proximal ureteric stones with reduced postoperative pain and short hospital stay, and should be considered as a treatment option for such stones.

Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Comparative Clinical Trial Between Transureteral Lithotripsy (TUL) and Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL)

BackgroundA review of the related medical journals indicates that there is no definite evidence-based option for managing large proximal ureteral stones, although many procedures such as transureteral lithotripsy (TUL), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and open ureterolithotomy are currently used to treat this urological problem.ObjectivesIn this study, we tried to determine the most appropriate treatment plan for proximal ureteral stones larger than 12 mm by comparing the two most commonly used procedures.Patients and MethodsBetween February 2005 and April 2011, 62 patients including 40 males and 22 females (mean age 39.5 years, range 19 to 64) with proximal ureteral stones larger than 12 mm (12–26 mm) with a mean size of 17.64 mm were prospectively divided into two groups consisting of 32 patients who underwent TUL (group A) and 30 who underwent SWL (group B). In unsuccessful cases, repeat SWL or TUL was planned. Patients who could not tolerate the lithotomy position, younger than 18 years, had undergone coagulopathy, had concurrent renal and ureteral stones, were pregnant, or had sepsis were excluded from this study.ResultsStone access was successful in 28 patients and the treatment was efficient in 18 patients (56.25%) in group A. For the patients with successful stone access but unsuccessful TUL, a DJ was inserted and a second ureteroscopic intervention was performed. The second intervention was successful in 7 patients (21.87). SWL was successful in 14 patients (46.66%) in the first attempt and in 7 additional patients in the second intervention (23.33%).ConclusionsIn this study, we showed different success rates for SWL and TUL because of the larger size of the stones. We achieved a success rate of 56.25% in the first attempt in the TUL group, and the overall success rate (after the second TUL) was 78.12%. In comparison, the SWL group had a success rate of 46.66% in the first attempt, and the overall success rate (after the second SWL) was 69.96%.

Prospective Randomized Study of Treatment of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Ureterolithotripsy Versus Laparoscopy

The best treatment modalities for large proximal ureteral stones are controversial, and include extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureterolithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and open surgery. To the best of our knowledge extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, semirigid ureterolithotripsy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy have not been previously compared for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. Therefore, we compared these modalities for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. A total of 48 patients with large proximal ureteral stones (greater than 1 cm) were prospectively randomized and enrolled in the study at a single institution between 2008 and 2010. Eligible patients were assigned to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, semirigid ureterolithotripsy or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy had a 35.7% success rate, semirigid ureterolithotripsy 62.5% and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy 93.3%. Stone-free rates showed a statistically significant difference among the groups (p = 0.005). Patients treated with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy vs semirigid ureterolithotripsy vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy required fewer treatment sessions (mean ± SD 1.9 ± 0.3 vs 2.2 ± 0.6 vs 2.9 ± 1.4, p = 0.027). Neither major nor long-term complications were observed. Proximal ureteral stone treatment requires multiple procedures until complete stone-free status is achieved. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy is associated with higher success rates and fewer surgical procedures, but with more postoperative pain, longer procedures and a longer hospital stay. Although it is associated with the highest success rates for large proximal ureteral calculi, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy remains a salvage, second line procedure, and it seems more advantageous than open ureterolithotomy. At less well equipped centers, where semirigid ureterolithotripsy or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is not available, it remains a good treatment option.

Editorial Comment

The authors share their experience of treating large proximal ureteral stones using semirigid ureteroscopes and a pneumatic lithotripter. At first glance, it would appear that overall they achieved remarkably outstanding stone-free rates. However, there was a 20% rate of failed initial ureteroscopy (7% in women, 35% in men), which is not surprising given the fact that the authors were using large-diameter (8-13.5 F) instruments. The higher failure rate in men is not surprising and reflects the fact that the male lower urinary tract anatomy at times is just not suited for ureteroscopy of the proximal ureter. The mere fact that 80% of the time the proximal stone was accessed is a testament to the expertise of the authors in performing semirigid ureteroscopy. Semirigid Ureteroscopy in Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Calculi: Is There Still a Role in Developing Countries?UrologyVol. 77Issue 5PreviewTo evaluate the outcome and complications of the use of semirigid ureteroscopy (URS) together with intracorporeal pneumatic lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteral calculi >10 mm in diameter. Full-Text PDF ReplyUrologyVol. 77Issue 5PreviewWe share the same opinion as the editors that if flexible instruments and holmium laser lithotripsy were available, they would be the first choice in the management of large proximal ureteric stones. However, we all know how expensive the cost of such equipment is in developing countries, making them available only in extremely selected institutes. We offer semirigid ureteroscopy to patients, knowing that we would expect a failure rate, to spare them the other alternative, open surgery. As the editors' state, “… the higher failure rate in men is not surprising and reflects the fact that the male lower urinary tract anatomy at times is just not suited for ureteroscopy of the proximal ureter.” Full-Text PDF

An alternative treatment for high-burden ureteral stones: percutaneous antegrade ureteroscopy

The treatment of large proximal ureteral stones continues to be controversial. We evaluated the antegrade percutaneous approaches for the proximal ureteral stones in our clinic. In this study, 73 percutaneous antegrade ureteroscopy (PAU) operations applied to proximal ureteral stones between February 2005 and December 2009 were included. The stones were located between ureteropelvic junction and 4th lumbar vertebra. PAUs were applied through appropriate calyx with the patients in prone position. During operations, amplatz dilatators were used for dilatation, and pneumatic lithotripter was used for stone fragmentation. Patients were evaluated according to their success rate, complications, hospitalization period, and preference of drainage tube etc. Patients' mean age was 52.21 years, the mean stone diameter was 19.47 mm (range 15-25), the mean stone burden was 283.76 ± 49.12 mm(2) (mean ± SD) (range 188.5-392.7) and the mean hospitalization time 1.69 days. Single access done in 68 patients and two accesses were needed in 5 patients. Sixty-eight patients (93.1%) became stone-free. Nephrostomy tubes were placed in 12 patients after operation, while tubeless approach was preferred in 61 patients. Complications were seen in five patients. There were not any complications reported during the follow-up period. PAU is an effective and safe treatment modality if appropriate calyx access was performed. The possibility of renal stone treatment in the same session is an important advantage of this modality.