Management Of Upper 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.

Uretroscopy with Laser vs ESWL in Management of Upper Ureteric Stones

Background Although SWL and Laser remain the most common modalities for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones, there is still an ongoing debate among the academicians and medical practitioners regarding the best treatment modality. Objective To compare the efficacy of ureteroscopy using holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy versus shock wave lithotripsy in management of proximal ureteric stones (≤10 mm) regarding surgical efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness. Patients and Methods This study was performed to compare ureteroscopy using holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy versus shock wave lithotripsy in management of proximal ureteric stones (≤10 mm) regarding surgical efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness. It included 52 patients with proximal ureteral stones and it was done in the period starting from September 2021 to February 2022. Results There was a statistically significant difference between the both modalities in favor of SWL as regarding the anesthesia, the overall procedural time and overall cost as SWL group were treated as an outpatient cases. There was a significant difference in used anesthesia (sedation for SWL and general anesthesia for Laser). Regarding Overall procedural time (hours), it was 4.55 ± 1.94 and was 36.88 ± 5.38 for SWL and Laser groups respectively. Overall cost; even if patients underwent three sessions of SWL, the cost between the two options was still significantly different. The overall cost of Laser was 15000 EP, with an efficiency of 80 %, while overall cost of SWL was (2500 EP), with an efficiency of 49.9 %. Conclusion Laser is more effective, has the advantage of the higher SFR from the first session without need of multiple hospital visits and prolonged radiation exposure time. SWL has lower treatment costs, while complications were comparable in both groups, so treatment decision depends on not only stone characteristics but also cost-effectiveness ratio and this should be considered when counseling the patient with proximal ureteric stone. Larger sample size is required for more convenience data.

Comparison between Intracorporeal Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) in terms of efficacy and Safety for Management of Proximal Ureteric Stones

Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of intracorporeal pneumatic lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in patients of upper ureteric stones having stone size from 10 to 15 mm. Study Design: Randomized control trial Setting: Study was done at department of Urology, Nishtar Hospital Multan. The duration of the study was from January 2021 to January 2022. Methodology: 140 patients were divided into two groups randomly. In group A ureterorenoscopy (URS) with Pneumatic Lithotripsy was used for proximal ureteric stones management. URS was performed under general anesthesia. In group B, ESWL was done for the management of proximal ureteric stones identified by ultrasound and fluoroscopy. SPSS version 23 was used for data analysis. Results: In this study In Intracorporeal Pneumatic Lithotripsy group the stone cleared in 90% patients and in ESWL group the stone cleared in 78.6% patients (p-value=0.595). In Intracorporeal Pneumatic Lithotripsy group the pain was present in 14.3% patients and in ESWL group the pain was present in 18.6% patients (p-value=0.494). In Intracorporeal Pneumatic Lithotripsy group the bleeding was noted in 25.7% patients and in ESWL group the bleeding was noted in 40.0% patients (p-value=0.072). Conclusion: This study concluded that intracorporeal pneumatic lithotripsy is a good alternate of ESWL for the management of upper ureteric stones (having size from 10 to 15mm). Keywords: Urolithiasis, Intracorporeal Pneumatic Lithotripsy, Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Ureteric Stone

The effect of stone size on the results of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteric stones

ABSTRACT Objectives To evaluate the role of stone size on the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) monotherapy vs ureteroscopy (URS) for managing upper ureteric stones. Patients and methods The study design was a randomised prospective study of a total cohort of 180 patients with upper ureteric single stones of 0.5–1.5 cm. Half of the patients were managed by ESWL monotherapy, while the other half underwent URS with stone fragmentation using an ultrasound lithotripter (URSL). The success rate, re-treatment rate, auxiliary procedure (AP) rate, efficacy quotient, and complications were compared between the two groups. Results After single URSL and ESWL procedures 70/90 (77.8%) and 35/90 (38.9%) of the stones were successfully cleared, respectively (P < 0.001). The re-treatment rate after ESWL was significantly higher than in the URSL group (38.9% vs 11.1%, P < 0.001). Requiring an AP was not significantly different following ESWL (22.2%) and URSL (24.4%) treatment. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) at 3 months was significantly superior in the URSL group (88.9% vs 77.8%); however, both procedures had excellent results with no significant difference for stones of <1 cm (95.5% vs 92.9%, P > 0.05), compared to better results following URSL for stones of >1 cm (82.6% vs 64.6%, P < 0.05). Conclusion Our present study supports that ESWL is recommended as a first-line non-invasive monotherapy for upper ureteric opaque stones of <1 cm, while URSL is recommended as a first-line treatment for stones of >1 cm. The results for URSL were superior with lower a re-treatment rate, rapid stone clearance in a very short time, and less radiation exposure. Therefore, stone size is an important factor for the final decision of the initial management of upper ureteric stones because it has a direct relation to the efficacy of ESWL, but it has no effect on the results of URSL.

Comparative Study Between Holmium Laser versus Pneumatic Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteric Stones Close to Pelvi-ureteric Junction (PUJ) -A Prospective Trial

Objective: To compare the outcomes of ureteroscopic lithotripsy with pneumatic lithotripter versus Holium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) laser in the management of upper ureteric stones. Materials and methods: Patients who underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy with pneumatic lithotripter or Ho:YAG laser for upper ureteric stones were reviewed. Patients with urinary tract infection, ,loss of follow-up, concurrent middle or lower third ureteral stones or acute renall failure were excluded. Patient age, stone size and burden (based on KUB or computerized tomography), stone upward migration, double J stent insertion rate, stone free rate and secondary intervention rate for residual stones were compared in both groups. Results: There were 70 patients with upper ureteric stones (35 in pneumatic group and 35 in laser group) meeting the study criteria. Patients’ age, gender, stone size and burden were similar in both groups. The Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy group had better stone free rate, less double J stent insertion rate and less upward migration and secondary intervention rate, sepsis as compared with pneumatic lithotripsy (94.2% vs. 60%; 85% vs. 100%; 5.7% vs 40%; 5.7% vs 34.2%; 2.8 vs 2.8 respectively, all p &lt; 0.05). In patients with stones sizes 8-10 mm, Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy had significantly lower upward migration rate, lower double J stent insertion rate, higher stone free rate and less secondary intervention rate. Conclusions: Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy is better and much effective than pneumatic lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteric stones in terms of, stone free rate and secondary intervention rate for stones of sizes about 8 to 10 mm.Although the access of upper ureter is difficult but our small calibre (4.5 fr) ureteoscope and gentle manuevre have made the procedures safe and successful. Bangladesh Journal of Urology, Vol. 23, No. 2, July 2020 p.188-192

Eswl for Upper Ureteric Stone With and Without JJ Stent-A Comparative Study

Objective: To find out the outcome of stenting before ESWL in the management of upper ureteric stone. Methods and materials: This prospective comparative study was conducted in the department of urology, Sylhet Osmani Medical College Hospital from January 2011 to June 2012. Sixty two patients with upper ureteric stone, aged between 18 to 60 years irrespective of sex, unilateral radio opaque upper ureteric stone of greatest diameter 2cm, patients with normal renal function and negative urine culture and were agreed to participate in the study were selected. Selected 62 patients with upper ureteric stones were divided randomly into group-A and group-B each consisting 31 patients. The patients of group-A were treated with ESWL with a JJ stent and that of group-B without JJ stent. In the patients selected for JJ placement, a 5 fr JJ stent was placed under regional anaesthesia before ESWL. Siemens Lithotripsy ESWL machine was used to impart shock waves and 3500 shockwaves was given in a session. Both the groups were compared for stone clearance, ureteric colic, steinstrasse, fever, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), number of ESWL sessions. Data were processed and analyzed using software SPSS. Results: The number ESWL session in stented group [single session 10 (32.3%) and multiple sessions 21 (67.7%)] and in non-stented group [single session 9 (29.0%) and multiple sessions 22 (71.0%)] was similar in both groups (p&gt;0.05) Stones were cleared in 23 (74.2%) patients in stented group and 25 (80.6%) patients in non-stented group. Difference was not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). Ureteric colic was significantly fewer in stented group than that of non-stented group [4 (12.9%) vs 11 (35.5%); p&lt;0.05] but surapubic pain was significantly more in stented group than that of non-stented group [13 (41.9%) vs 5 (16.1%); p&lt;0.05]; while steinstrasse [3 (9.7%) vs 5 (16.1%); p&gt;0.05] and fever [5 (16.1%) vs 2 (6.5%); p&gt;0.05] did not differ statistically significant between groups. Lower urinary tract symptoms such as urinary frequency [15 (48.4%) vs 3 (9.7%); p&lt;0.01]; urgency [17 (54.8%) vs 5 (16.1%); p&lt;0.01] and dysuria [19 (61.3%) vs 6 (19.4%); p&lt;0.01] were significantly more in stented group than that of non-stented group; but gross haematuria [21 (67.7%) vs 15 (48.4%); p&gt;0.05] were more in stented group. Conclusion: ESWL is an effective and reasonable initial therapy in the management of upper ureteric stones measuring &lt;2 cm. Pre-ESWL ureteric stenting provides no additional benefit over non-stented ESWL in their management. Moreover, stents are associated with signiûcant patient discomfort and morbidity. Bangladesh Journal of Urology, Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan 2014 p.17-22

Comparative Study between Flexible Ureteroscopy and Semirigid Ureteroscopy in Management of Upper Ureteric Stones using Laser Lithotripsy

Background: There are various options in the management of proximal ureteral stones, which includes medical expulsive therapy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS; retrograde), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), laparoscopy (LAP), and open surgery. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of both semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy in management of upper ureteric stones using laser lithotripsy. Patients and Methods: To achieve this goal, this prospective study was done at the urology department, Ain Shams University Hospitals on 60 patients with upper ureteric stones less than 2 cm in size. They were divided into groups of 30 patients in each group. Patients in group A were treated by semirigid ureteroscopy. While patients in group B were treated by flexible ureteroscopy using laser lithotripsy in both procedures. Results: Stone free rate was 90.0% in group A while it was 93.3% in group B. Mean operative time was 55.07 ± 13.24 min in Group A while it was 64.63 ± 17.33 min in Group B. Success rate was 76.7% in group A, while it was 90.0% in group B. 20% of patients in group A had intra or postoperative complications in the form of: 6.7% of cases had failure to access to the stone, in 3.3% of cases there was upward migration of stone toward kidneys, 3.3% of cases had ureteral submucosal injury, 3.3% of patients had postoperative fever and 3.3% of patients developed haematuria. Conclusion: Flexible ureteroscopy is a favorable option for patients having proximal ureteral stones with higher stone free rate and success rate. On the other hand, semirigid ureteroscopy is an acceptable alternative for treatment of proximal ureteral stones. Flexible ureteroscopy costs is much higher compared to semirigid ureteroscopy

Comparative Study between Flexible Ureteroscopy and Semirigid Ureteroscopy in Management of Upper Ureteric Stones using Laser Lithotripsy

Comparative Study between Flexible Ureteroscopy and Semirigid Ureteroscopy in Management of Upper Ureteric Stones using Laser Lithotripsy

Role of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Management of Upper Ureteric Stones

IntroductionThe treatment options for upper ureteric stones range from open surgeries to minimally invasive and non invasive techniques. Presently the two most frequently used options for upper ureteric calculi that require intervention are extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureterorenoscopy (URS) with contact lithotripsy applied by attaining endoscopic access to the calculi. ObjectiveThe objective of this study is meant to evaluate ESWL in the treatment of upper ureteric stones ≤2 cm in terms of stone free rates, complications and procedure time. Patients and methodSeventy six patients were subjected to ESWL as primary modality for treatment of upper ureteric stone. ESWL group had mean stone size of 10.58 mm. The stone free rate was 93.4% for ESWL. The sample size was adequate as it was determined by statistician by applying pertinent formulas. ResultsIt was observed that the stone free rate in ESWL group was higher (97.7%) when the stone size was ≤10 mm and when the duration of symptoms was <1 month. ESWL was advantageous in terms of procedural time with no requirement of anaesthesia. The complications in ESWL were minor in nature and were not statistically significant. ConclusionIn conclusion, this study shows that ESWL is an important modality in treating upper ureteric calculi ≤2 cm in size and we strongly recommend ESWL as the first choice of procedure in solitary upper ureteric calculi ≤10 mm size.

UPPER URETERIC STONES

Objectives: Compare the efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy withPneumatic Lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteric stones. Settings: Department ofUrology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. Duration of Study: From November 2008 to August2009. Results: In our study, the patients were divided into two groups ie; Extracorporeal ShockWave Lithotripsy group (ESWL) and Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL). The mean age inPneumatic Lithotripsy (PnL) was 39+15.23 years, whereas mean age was 40.6+14.62 years inExtracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy group (ESWL). In Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsygroup (ESWL), 38(76%) patients were male and 12(24%) patients were female while numberwas 34(68%) and 16(32% in Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL) respectively. In both groups,there was male preponderance. In ESWL group, majority of patients were treated as outdoorpatients. 95% of them received intramuscular analgesia where as 5% required intravenoussedation. All patients were followed at two weekly interval up till 6 weeks. Fifty patients requiredmore than 125 sessions of ESWL with mean shock waves 2960+222.23 at at mean energy6.46+0.503kv, 2952+327.77 at 6.45+0.504 kv and 2842+410.03 at 6.76 0.436 kv at 2, 4 and 6weeks respectively. The partial clearance was achieved in 34 patients at 2 weeks, 26 patientsat 4 weeks and 5 patients at 2 weeks. Stone free status at 2 weeks, 4 weeks and 6 weeks were18%, 40% and 84% respectively. In Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL) all of the 50 patientswere given general anesthesia. DJ stent was placed in all patients after the procedure for sixweeks follow up. 42(84%) of patients received shots of Pneumatic Lithotripsy on pulse modewhile in 8(16%) patients, shots were on continuous mode. The partial clearance was achieved in5(10%), 3(6%) and 2(4%) patients at 2, 4 and 6 weeks respectively. Stone free status was 48%,52% and 54% at 2, 4 and 6 weeks respectively. In 20(40%) patients, stone migrated into calyces.Only in 1(2%) patients, there was no effect on stone. All patients in both groups were neededtwo weekly follow up till six weeks. Stone clearance was 84% in Extracorporeal Shock WaveLithotripsy (ESWL) group while it was 54% in Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL), p&lt;0.001.Conclusion: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy offers higher stone free rates with minimalinvasiveness and high safety compared to Pneumatic Lithotripsy, which provides immediatehigh stone free rates, but with high risk of treatment failure.

COMPARISON OF EXTRA CORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY WITH PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPSY IN THE MANAGEMENT

Objectives: Compare the efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy withPneumatic Lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteric stones. Settings: Department ofUrology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. Duration of Study: From November 2008 to August2009. Results: In our study, the patients were divided into two groups ie; Extracorporeal ShockWave Lithotripsy group (ESWL) and Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL). The mean age inPneumatic Lithotripsy (PnL) was 39+15.23 years, whereas mean age was 40.6+14.62 years inExtracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy group (ESWL). In Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsygroup (ESWL), 38(76%) patients were male and 12(24%) patients were female while numberwas 34(68%) and 16(32% in Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL) respectively. In both groups,there was male preponderance. In ESWL group, majority of patients were treated as outdoorpatients. 95% of them received intramuscular analgesia where as 5% required intravenoussedation. All patients were followed at two weekly interval up till 6 weeks. Fifty patients requiredmore than 125 sessions of ESWL with mean shock waves 2960+222.23 at at mean energy6.46+0.503kv, 2952+327.77 at 6.45+0.504 kv and 2842+410.03 at 6.76 0.436 kv at 2, 4 and 6weeks respectively. The partial clearance was achieved in 34 patients at 2 weeks, 26 patientsat 4 weeks and 5 patients at 2 weeks. Stone free status at 2 weeks, 4 weeks and 6 weeks were18%, 40% and 84% respectively. In Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL) all of the 50 patientswere given general anesthesia. DJ stent was placed in all patients after the procedure for sixweeks follow up. 42(84%) of patients received shots of Pneumatic Lithotripsy on pulse modewhile in 8(16%) patients, shots were on continuous mode. The partial clearance was achieved in5(10%), 3(6%) and 2(4%) patients at 2, 4 and 6 weeks respectively. Stone free status was 48%,52% and 54% at 2, 4 and 6 weeks respectively. In 20(40%) patients, stone migrated into calyces.Only in 1(2%) patients, there was no effect on stone. All patients in both groups were neededtwo weekly follow up till six weeks. Stone clearance was 84% in Extracorporeal Shock WaveLithotripsy (ESWL) group while it was 54% in Pneumatic Lithotripsy group (PnL), p&lt;0.001.Conclusion: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy offers higher stone free rates with minimalinvasiveness and high safety compared to Pneumatic Lithotripsy, which provides immediatehigh stone free rates, but with high risk of treatment failure.

In Situ Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and ESWL after Push Back For Upper Ureteric Calculi: A Comparative Study

Background: ESWL is one of the most important modality for the treatment of urolithiasis. In situ ESWL is a non-invasive and safe procedure for renal and upper ureteric stones in selected cases &amp; can be performed on outpatient basis. However, some urologists claim a higher success rate of ESWL after push back procedures for upper ureteric calculi.Materials &amp; Methods: This prospective study was done to compare the results of treatment of upper ureteral calculi by in situ ESWL and ESWL after push back. 90 consenting patients with single upper ureteric stones of ≤ 1 cm in size with no distal obstruction were selected and divided into two groups. 50 patients in group 1 were treated by in situ ESWL while 40 patients in group 2 were treated by push back followed by ESWL.Results: Better clearance was achieved with ESWL after push back (92.5% clearance after 90 days) than with in situ ESWL (90% clearance after 90 days) but it was not statistically significant (p&gt;0.05). The mean shock wave was 1994 ± 449 for in situ ESWL group and 1757.5 ± 255 for ESWL after push back group, which was statistically very significant (p&lt;0.01). The mean energy used was 5.07 ± 0.81 in the in situ ESWL group and 4.6 ± 0.48 in ESWL after push back group and this difference was also statistically significant (p&lt;0.01). Post procedure complications like loin pain, hematuria, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and fever were more common in ESWL after push back group than in the in situ ESWL group and the differences were statistically significant.Conclusion: In situ ESWL is a better option than ESWL after push back for the management of upper ureteric stones in selected group of patients. Journal of Nobel Medical CollegeVolume 6, Number 1, Issue 10 (January-June, 2017), page: 72-76

A comparative study between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteric calculus

Introduction and Objective: A stone in the ureter usually comes from the kidney. Urolithiasis is the third most common disease of the urinary tract which is surpassed only by urinary tract infections and pathologic conditions of prostate. There are some controversies on the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) in ureteral stones. We aim to compare the efficacy of ESWL and URSL in the management of upper ureteric stones in terms of stone clearance.Materials and Methods: This prospective hospital based study included patients with upper ureteric calculus managed with URSL with DJ stenting or ESWL at Dhulikhel Hospital-Kathmandu University Hospital from August 2014 to December 2015. Stone size, stone clearance, number of sittings, complications and need of other procedure were recorded.Results: Total number of patients undergone ESWL was 49 and URSL was 48. There was no difference in male/ female ratio, age and stone diameter between two groups (P&gt;0.05). Total stone-free ratio was 85.71%(42/49) for ESWL and 81.25%(39/48) for URSL, partial fragmentation requiring shift of modality of treatment was 12.24%(6/49) for ESWL and 12.5%(6/48) for URSL, failed procedure was 2.04%(1/49) for ESWL and 6.25%(3/48%) for URSL(P= 0.577).Conclusion: ESWL is as effective as URSL in the management of upper ureteric calculus with no significant difference in age, male/female ratio, stone diameter and stone free ratio

Efficacy of Percutaneous Nephrostomy Tube During Ureteroscopy for Upper Ureter Stone Management

Preoperative percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) has been commonly performed for patients with urinary stones complicated with pyelonephritis or obstructive uropathy; in fact, a considerable number of patients undergo ureteroscopic removal of stone (URS) in the presence of a PCN. We assessed the effectiveness of PCN during URS in the management of upper ureteral stones. We retrospectively analyzed 140 patients who underwent URS for upper ureteral stones between January 2008 and December 2011. All URS were performed by a single experienced surgeon. The subjects were divided into two groups depending on the presence of a PCN at the time of the surgery (PCN group: 42 and non-PCN group: 98). The PCN group was subdivided into two groups depending on the performance of external fluid irrigation through PCN during the surgery (irrigation group: 21 and non-irrigation group: 21). To evaluate operative outcomes, we compared operative times, auxiliary procedures required, and success and complication rates. The PCN group showed significantly better outcomes in terms of the operative time (57.4 minute vs. 68.1 minute) and success rate (92.9% vs. 78.6%) without increasing the complication rate. In the PCN group, the irrigation group showed a shorter operative time compared to the non-irrigation group, although statistical significance was not observed. Other perioperative outcomes, such as the success rate, auxiliary procedures, and complication rates, were not significantly different between the two groups. URS for upper ureteral stones in patients with PCN produced superior surgical outcomes in terms of the success rate, operative time, and auxiliary procedure rate without increasing the complication rate. The presence of PCN with/without external irrigation during URS can be a beneficial factor to produce better outcomes of URS for the management of upper ureteral stones.

Retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site ureterolithotomy for upper ureteral stone disease

Objective. The aim of this article was to present this group's clinical experience with retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) ureterolithotomy for the management of upper ureteral stones in selected patients. Material and methods. From May 2011 to November 2012, retroperitoneal LESS ureterolithotomy was performed in 22 patients at Xiangya Hospital. During the operation, a transverse skin incision was made approximately 2.5 cm in length along the lower margin of the 12th rib at the midaxillary line, and a single port was inserted. Standard steps of a multisite retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy with a combination of conventional straight instruments and bent instruments were performed. Results. All cases were completed successfully without conversion to standard laparoscopy or open surgery. No additional ports or expensive flexible instruments were required. Overall, mean operative time was 98.5 min (range 76--174 min) and mean estimated blood loss was 33.4 ml (range 18--53 ml). Mean hospital stay after surgery was 3.7 days (range 3--5 days). One patient had fever postoperatively due to an Escherichia coli urinary tract infection, which resolved with appropriate antibiotic therapy. There were no major complications. The mean follow-up period was 10.5 months (range 3--21 months). All patients were asymptomatic and did not exhibit signs or symptoms of obstruction or stricture. Conclusions. Retroperitoneal LESS ureterolithotomy is a feasible, safe and effective surgical method for the treatment of upper ureteral stones in select patients. Prospective studies based on more patients are needed to evaluate further its advantages over conventional laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.

Reply

We appreciate the comments of the respected reviewer. Various studies have been conducted for evaluating the role of α-blockers in assisting passage of lower ureteric stones, fragments resulting from SWL for renal and lower ureteral calculi, and fragments of steinstrasse. Tamsulosin has been the most commonly used medication; however, most studies have limitations in design, including sample size, heterogenecity of inclusion criteria, and lack of blinding and placebo-control, thereby lowering the strength of authenticity. Moreover, meta-analyses generated from such studies are similarly marred. Publication bias (file-drawer effect) and Simpson-effect are other limitations of meta-analysis. All factors combined lead to discrepancies between results of such meta-analysis and subsequent high quality large randomized controlled trials. 1 Agarwal M.S. Gupta M. Gupta A. et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing efficacy of alfuzosin and tamsulosin in management of lower ureteral stones. Urology. 2009; 73: 706-709 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar Therefore, meta-analyses which are not based on “best evidence” should be interpreted with caution. Is There an Adjunctive Role of Tamsulosin to Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Upper Ureteric Stones: Results of an Open Label Randomized Nonplacebo Controlled StudyUrologyVol. 74Issue 5PreviewTo investigate the role of tamsulosin as an adjunct to management of upper ureteric stones (UUS) with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Full-Text PDF Editorial CommentUrologyVol. 74Issue 5PreviewThere have been several publications that have looked at the efficacy of expulsive therapy for ureteric and indeed renal stones after SWL. The rationale of using α-1-adrenergic antagonists in medical expulsion therapy (MET) for the treatment of distal ureteral stones arose from the concept that they can induce selective relaxation of the ureteral smooth muscle. This inhibits ureteral spasms and results in dilatation of the ureteral lumen, increasing the fluid volume transported, and thereby helping expulsion of the stone. Full-Text PDF

Is There an Adjunctive Role of Tamsulosin to Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Upper Ureteric Stones: Results of an Open Label Randomized Nonplacebo Controlled Study

To investigate the role of tamsulosin as an adjunct to management of upper ureteric stones (UUS) with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). In this prospective, randomized, open label study, patients with single UUS (for SWL) were randomly assigned into 2 groups based on whether they received 0.4 mg tamsulosin (group A and B, respectively) during treatment. Repeat SWL was performed at week 1, 3, and 5 after first session. Primary outcome variables were success rate and pain intensity. A total of 40 patients (20 each group) completed the requisite follow-up. Success rate was higher in group A after 1 SWL-session (55% vs 25%, respectively; P = .05). There was an insignificant trend of decreased number of days (30.7 +/- 19.7 vs 39.0 +/- 19.9; P = .19), number of SWL sessions (1.6 vs 2.0; P = .10), and pain experienced (score on visual analog scale, 25.3 +/- 17.9 vs 38.3 +/- 28.0, respectively; P = .41) in group A. Three in group A and 6 in B developed steinstrasse (P = .69). Overall, 1 in group A required auxiliary procedures as compared with 3 in control group (P = .60). Tamsulosin improves clearance rate of UUS after single SWL. However, it does not provide significant advantage in terms of decreasing pain associated with this treatment.

Editorial Comment

There have been several publications that have looked at the efficacy of expulsive therapy for ureteric and indeed renal stones after SWL. The rationale of using α-1-adrenergic antagonists in medical expulsion therapy (MET) for the treatment of distal ureteral stones arose from the concept that they can induce selective relaxation of the ureteral smooth muscle. This inhibits ureteral spasms and results in dilatation of the ureteral lumen, increasing the fluid volume transported, and thereby helping expulsion of the stone. ReplyUrologyVol. 74Issue 5PreviewWe appreciate the comments of the respected reviewer. Various studies have been conducted for evaluating the role of α-blockers in assisting passage of lower ureteric stones, fragments resulting from SWL for renal and lower ureteral calculi, and fragments of steinstrasse. Tamsulosin has been the most commonly used medication; however, most studies have limitations in design, including sample size, heterogenecity of inclusion criteria, and lack of blinding and placebo-control, thereby lowering the strength of authenticity. Full-Text PDF Is There an Adjunctive Role of Tamsulosin to Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Upper Ureteric Stones: Results of an Open Label Randomized Nonplacebo Controlled StudyUrologyVol. 74Issue 5PreviewTo investigate the role of tamsulosin as an adjunct to management of upper ureteric stones (UUS) with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Full-Text PDF

The Outcome of Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Ureterolithotomy for the Management of Upper Ureteral Stones Larger than 10 mm: A Comparison with Rigid Ureteroscopic Removal of Stones with Lithoclast®

Purpose: We evaluated the outcome of laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (LRU) and compared the results with the rigid ureteroscopic removal of stones with the LithoclastR (rigid URS) for the management of large upper ureteral stones (≥10 mm). Materials and Methods: Between July 2002 and March 2008, rigid URS and LRU were performed in 37 and 24 patients, respectively. We evaluated the outcomes of each procedure and compared the success rate according to the location (above and below the L3 level by the third intervertebral disc of the lumbar spine) and size of the stones (10-15 mm and ≥15 mm in diameter). Results: The overall success rate for rigid URS and LRU were 70.3% (26/37) and 91.7% (22/24), respectively (p=0.059). For rigid URS, the success rate was 50.0% (8/16) and 85.7% (18/21) for stones above and below the L3 level (p=0.030), respectively, and 85.7% (23/28) and 33.3% (3/9) for stones 10-15 mm and ≥15 mm in diameter, respectively (p=0.011). For LRU, the success rate was 92.3% (12/13) and 90.9% (10/11) for stones above and below the L3 level, respectively (p=0.902), and 50.0% (1/2) and 95.5% (21/22) for stones 10-15 mm and ≥15 mm in diameter, respectively. Conclusions: LRU demonstrated a high success rate regardless of the location and size of the stones. The outcomes with rigid URS were more varied. These results suggest that LRU is a feasible alternative for large upper ureteral stones that are 15 mm or more in size or located above the intervertebral disc between the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae. (Korean J Urol 2009;50:349-354) 󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏󰠏

Matched pair analysis of ureteroscopy vs. shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteric calculi

There is controversy over whether shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) or ureteroscopy (URS) is the best management of ureteric calculi, especially for stones located in the upper ureter. This study compares URS and SWL management of upper ureteric stones directly for the first time using a different analysis tool, the matched pair analysis study design. This method enables meaningful comparisons to be made on a small number of matched patients, using precise like-for-like matching. Adult patients undergoing primary treatment of solitary radiopaque proximal ureteric stones were identified. Patients with stents, nephrostomies or stones at the pelvi-ureteric junction were excluded. Patients had a minimum of 3 months follow-up. Patients treated by primary URS were matched using four parameters (sex, laterality, stone size and location) to patients treated on a Dornier Compact Delta Lithotriptor. A total of 1479 patients had URS or SWL from which 27 upper ureteric stone matched pairs were identified. Three-month stone free rates were 82% for URS and 89% for SWL (McNemar's test, p=0.625). Re-treatment was required in 11% and 26% following URS and SWL respectively (p=0.219). Forty-one per cent of URS patients required an ancillary treatment, such as stent removal, compared with only 22% of SWL patients (p=0.227). Introduction of a holmium:YAG laser for use with URS improved the stone free rate for URS to 100%. Using a robust like-for-like comparison of similar patients with very similar upper ureteric stones the outcomes following SWL and URS were comparable. Choice of treatment should therefore be based on parameters such as availability of equipment, waiting times and patient preference.