Proximal Ureteral Calculi Research Articles

Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Calculi: A Three-year Multicenter Experience of Simultaneous Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Ureterolithotripsy.

To share our multicenter experience using a safe and effective method for treating large proximal ure-teral calculus by simultaneous supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPCNL) and retrograde ureterolithotripsy (URSL) in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position. Between December 2014 and August 2017, all patients with large proximal ureteral stones (> 15 mm) who underwent simultaneous sPCNL and retrograde URSL at three medical centers were retro-spectively reported. The ureter stone was pushed back (retrograde) with the ureteroscope and was retrieved using forceps with a nephroscope through an Amplatz sheath. Surgical methods and outcomes were described to improve our experience and management of large proximal ureteral calculi. A total of 31 patients underwent simultaneous sPCNL and retrograde URSL. The mean patient age, stone size, operating time, and postoperative hospital stay were 57 years (range, 32-74 years), 20.1 mm (range, 15.0-37.9 mm), 81 minutes (range, 30-150), and 3.2 days (range, 2-7 days), respectively. There were 10 modified Clavien grade I and five grade II complications. No blood transfusions were necessary in this series. All patients were treated with double-J stents without a nephrostomy tube. Only one patient did not achieve stone-free status because of the strict stone impaction into the ureteral wall. This patient received auxiliary URSL after two months. Thereafter, the overall stone-clearance rate at three months was 100%. Our preliminary data showed that this modified method is safe and effective for treating large prox-imal ureteral stones.

Early ureteroscopic lithotripsy in acute renal colic caused by ureteral calculi

We aimed at comparing the success and complications of early semirigid ureteroscopy (URS) and elective URS in ureteral calculi with renal colic that do not respond to analgesics. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 690 patients with obstructive ureteral stones who underwent URS with stone retrieval. 247 patients who underwent early URS within the first 12h were classified as group I and 443 patients who underwent elective URS as group II. Both groups were compared in terms of age, sex, creatinine, eGFR, stone size, laterality, location and number of stones, type of lithotriptor, presence of hydronephrosis and success and complication rates. The mean age of the patients was 50.4 (18-89years) (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, eGFR, side, presence of hydronephrosis, fever, mucosal damage, stone migration, perforated ureter, ureteral avulsion, ureteral stent insertion at the end of the surgery and sepsis (p > 0.05). Both groups had male dominance (p > 0.05). Creatinine was significantly lower in Group I (p < 0.05). The mean stone size was also significantly lower in Group I (p < 0.05). Middle and proximal ureteral calculi were more common in Group II (p < 0.05). Multiple stones were higher in Group II (p < 0.05). The dominant type of lithotriptor used was pneumatic in Group I and laser in Group II (p < 0.05). Stone-free rates (SFRs) were higher in Group I (98% vs 90% in the first month) (p < 0.05). Postoperative hematuria and infection were more common in Group II (p < 0.05). In selected cases, early ureteroscopy is an effective and safe method for distal ureteral calculi smaller than 10mm that are painful and resistant to analgesic treatment.

UP050 - Predictive value of ureteral wall thickness on the likelihood of JJ stent placement in obstructing proximal ureteral calculi

UP050 - Predictive value of ureteral wall thickness on the likelihood of JJ stent placement in obstructing proximal ureteral calculi

Could ureteral wall thickness have an impact on the operative and post-operative parameters in ureteroscopic management of proximal ureteral stones?

AimTo evaluate the possible impact of stone impaction in terms of ureteral wall thickness (UWT) on the success and procedure related parameters of ureteroscopic management in proximal ureteral calculi. Patients and methods82 patients with proximal ureteric stones were included and were divided into two subgroups where UWT was >5 mm in 38 cases; and <5 mm in 44 cases. Stone size, degree of hydronehrosis, diameter of proximal ureteral lumen, UWT and patient's demographics were evaluated. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy with Ho-YAG laser was performed and the possible impact of UWT as an objective parameter for stone impaction on the success rates and procedure related parameters was evaluated. ResultsMean patient age and stone size values were 47.55 ± 1.78 years and 8.17 ± 0.29 mm respectively. Regarding the impact of UWT value at the stone site for the parameters mentioned above stone free rates particularly at 1-week after the procedure was higher in group 2 and the rate of residual fragments as well as the need for double J stent placement was higher in group 1. Additionally, mean duration of the procedures was significantly longer in Group 1 during which pathologic alterations were significantly higher in ureteral wall at stone site were observed in these cases (p:0.0243). ConclusionsUWT may be used to predict the success of ureteroscopic management and other procedure related parameters for proximal ureteral stones in an effective manner. With this approach a more rational operative plan with higher success rates, limited complications and auxiliary procedures could be made.

Comparison of Stone Retrieval Basket, Stone Cone and Holmium Laser: Which One Is Better in Retropulsion and Stone-Free Status for Patients with Upper Ureteral Calculi?

Introduction: Transurethral lithotripsy (TUL) is an appropriate treatment for ureteral stones and is usually used for stones in the middle and lower part of the ureter. Different devices such as the Holmium laser, the stone basket, and the stone cone exist to prevent any fragments from retropulsion during TUL. The present study aims to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the Holmium laser, the stone basket, and the stone cone. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted from September 2016 to January 2018 comparing various TUL methods in 88 subjects with proximal ureteral calculi. The study participants were divided into 4 matched groups. The first one included 20 patients undergoing TUL with no device (group 1), the second group included 22 patients undergoing TUL while using the stone retrieval basket, the third group included 18 patients undergoing TUL while utilizing the stone cone and the fourth group included 28 patients undergoing TUL while using the Hol-YAG laser. Results: A residual stone ≥3 mm was recorded in 15.9% of the patients. The stone free rate was seen in 100%, 90.9, 83.3%, and 55% of the Holmium laser group, the retrieval basket group, the stone cone group and the no device group respectively (P=0.001). The lowest rate of surgery complications including ureteral perforation, post-operative fever, and mucosal damage between the 4 groups (P=0.003) and the highest time of surgery (P=0.001) belonged to the laser group. If we want to ignore the laser group, the success rate for lithotripsy was better in both groups with a stone retrieval device compared to the no device group, but no advantage existed between the stone basket and the stone cone. Conclusion: We can safely conclude that lasers significantly help to prevent stone migration during TUL. If we want to ignore the laser group, the success rate for lithotripsy was significantly better in both groups with a stone retrieval device compared to the no device group, but no advantage existed between the stone basket and the stone cone.

¿Podría el espesor de la pared ureteral afectar a los parámetros intra y postoperatorios de la ureteroscopia para el tratamiento de piedras ureterales proximales?

AimTo evaluate the possible impact of stone impaction in terms of ureteral wall thickness (UWT) on the success and procedure related parameters of ureteroscopic management in proximal ureteral calculi. Patients and methods82 patients with proximal ureteric stones were included and were divided into 2subgroups where UWT was> 5mm in 38 cases; and <5mm in 44 cases. Stone size, degree of hydronehrosis, diameter of proximal ureteral luz, UWT and patient's demographics were evaluated. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy with Ho-YAG laser was performed and the possible impact of UWT as an objective parameter for stone impaction on the success rates and procedure related parameters was evaluated. ResultsMean patient age and stone size values were 47.55±1.78 years and 8.17±0.29mm respectively. Regarding the impact of UWT value at the stone site for the parameters mentioned above stone free rates particularly at 1-week after the procedure was higher in group 2 and the rate of residual fragments as well as the need for double J stent placement was higher in group 1. Additionally, mean duration of the procedures was significantly longer in Group 1 during which pathologic alterations were significantly higher in ureteral wall at stone site were observed in these cases (P=.0243). ConclusionsUWT may be used to predict the success of ureteroscopic management and other procedure related parameters for proximal ureteral stones in an effective manner. With this approach a more rational operative plan with higher success rates, limited complications and auxiliary procedures could be made.

Surgical management of urolithiasis \u2013 a systematic analysis of available guidelines

BackgroundSeveral societies around the world issue guidelines incorporating the latest evidence. However, even the most commonly cited guidelines of the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA) leave the clinician with several treatment options and differ on specific points. We aimed to identify discrepancies and areas of consensus between guidelines to give novel insights into areas where low consensus between the guideline panels exists, and therefore where more evidence might increase consensus.MethodsThe webpages of the 61 members of the Societé Internationale d’Urologie were analysed to identify all listed or linked guidelines. Decision trees for the surgical management of urolithiasis were derived, and a comparative analysis was performed to determine consensus and discrepancies.ResultsFive national and one international guideline (EAU) on surgical stone treatment were available for analysis. While 7 national urological societies refer to the AUA guidelines and 11 to the EAU guidelines, 43 neither publish their own guidelines nor refer to others. Comparative analysis revealed a high degree of consensus for most renal and ureteral stone scenarios. Nevertheless, we also identified a variety of discrepancies between the different guidelines, the largest being the approach to the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi and larger renal calculi.ConclusionsSix guidelines with recommendations for the surgical treatment of urolithiasis to support urologists in decision-making were available for inclusion in our analysis. While there is a high grade of consensus for most stone scenarios, we also detected some discrepancies between different guidelines. These are, however, controversial situations where adequate evidence to assist with decision-making has yet to be elicited by further research.

Applicability of percutaneous nephrolithotomy operation in a county State Hospital

To evaluate percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) operation, which is widely used and successfully performed in current practice, its applicability in district hospitals and to present the results of our operations. Between March 2014-2016, 32 PNL operations, which were performed in Urology Clinic of the Silvan County State Hospital, were retrospectively evaluated. All patients were assessed by routine urine tests, serum biochemical and coagulation tests, ultrasonography and computerized tomography. All operations were done by the same surgeon and performed at prone position under epidural or general anesthesia. Age, sex, stone size, laterality, operative time, fluoroscopy time, complications, stone-free rate were recorded. The sample included 17 women and 15 men with a mean age of 24.6 (11-42), and the mean stone size was 3.05 (2-5) cm. 29 patients had kidney stone (16 left-13 right) and 3 patients had proximal ureteral calculi. Incomplete duplex system was present in 6 patients. The total success rate was 93.75%. The mean operative time was 56 (28-120) minutes and mean hospitalization time was 2.6 (2-4) days. The operation failed in two patients. Blood transfusion was performed in 1 case (3.1 %). 4 patients who had postoperative hematuria were managed conservatively. However, none of the patients had intraabdominal organ injuries or required open surgery. PNL, which has become the gold standard in the treatment of large kidney stones, may be applied with similar success and complication rates of the literature, despite some difficulties arising from limited facilities in peripheral state hospitals.

28 - Evaluation with decision tree of efficacy and safety of semirigid ureteroscopy in the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi

28 - Evaluation with decision tree of efficacy and safety of semirigid ureteroscopy in the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi

Evaluation with Decision Trees of Efficacy and Safety of Semirigid Ureteroscopy in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Calculi

Purpose: The decision on the choice of proximal ureteral stone therapy depends on many factors, and sometimes urologists have difficulty in choosing the treatment option. This study is aimed at evaluating the factors affecting the success of semirigid ureterorenoscopy (URS) using the “decision tree” method. Materials and Methods: From January 2005 to November 2015, the data of consecutive patients treated for proximal ureteral stone were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 920 patients with proximal ureteral stone treated with semirigid URS were included in the study. All statistically significant attributes were tested using the decision tree method. Results: The model created using decision tree had a sensitivity of 0.993 and an accuracy of 0.857. While URS treatment was successful in 752 patients (81.7%), it was unsuccessful in 168 patients (18.3%). According to the decision tree method, the most important factor affecting the success of URS is whether the stone is impacted to the ureteral wall. The second most important factor affecting treatment was intramural stricture requiring dilatation if the stone is impacted, and the size of the stone if not impacted. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the impacted stone, intramural stricture requiring dilatation and stone size may have a significant effect on the success rate of semirigid URS for proximal ureteral stone. Further studies with population-based and longitudinal design should be conducted to confirm this finding.

417 - Transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy vs. percutaneous antegrade ureteroscopy in the treatment of large proximal ureteral calculi: A prospective randomized comparative study

417 - Transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy vs. percutaneous antegrade ureteroscopy in the treatment of large proximal ureteral calculi: A prospective randomized comparative study

Ureterorrenoscopia flexible: estado del arte y guía práctica de consejos y trucos

Flexible ureterorenoscopy is being used as first line treatment for kidney stones and proximal ureteral calculi, with variable success rates between different authors and lack of heterogeneity to define the minimal lithiasic mass in the stone free rate concept. The aim of this article is to present a descriptive analysis of the state of the art in flexible ureterorenoscopy as the preferred modern stone therapy, the tips and tricks that are setting the pace, and the tips and tricks of a reference centre for stone disease. In order to ensure high effectiveness combined with a low complication rate and a low stone free rate thus to make flexible ureterorenoscopy easier than ever.

Flexible ureterorenoscopy: State of the art and practical guide of tips and tricks

Flexible ureterorenoscopy is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for patients with renal lithiasis and proximal ureteral calculi, with varying success rates among different groups of authors and with great heterogeneity in defining the minimum size to assess stone-free rate. The article presents a literature review on the state of the art in flexible ureterorenoscopy, as well as it clarifies different concepts, while offering tips and tricks that have been implemented in a reference center for the management of urolithiasis, aiming to reduce complications, while improving stone-free rate and the performance of the procedure for urologists.

Semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large upper ureteral stones: a meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACTIntroduction:To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) for the treatment of the large proximal ureteral stone.Materials and methods:A systematic literature review was performed in June 2015 using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria.Results:Six RCT including 646 patients were analyzed, 325 URS cases (50.3%) and 321 LU cases (49.7%). URS provided a significantly shorter operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −31.26 min; 95%CI −46.88 to −15.64; p<0.0001) and length of hospital stay (WMD = −1.48 days; 95%CI −2.78 to −0.18; p=0.03) than LU. There were no significant differences in terms of overall complications (OR = 0.78; 95%CI 0.21-2.92; p=0.71) and major complications – Clavien ≥3 – (OR = 1.79; 95%CI 0.59-5.42; p=0.30). LU led to a significantly higher initial stone-free rate (OR = 8.65; 95%CI 4.18-17.91; p<0.00001) and final stone-free rate (OR = 6.41; 95%CI 2.24-18.32; p=0.0005) than URS. There was a significantly higher need for auxiliary procedures in URS cases (OR = 6.58; 95%CI 3.42-12.68; p<0.00001).Conclusions:Outcomes with LU for larger proximal ureteral calculi are favorable compared to semi-rigid URS and should be considered as a first-line alternative if flexible ureteroscopy is not available. Utilization of flexible ureteroscopy in conjunction with semi-rigid ureteroscopy may impact these outcomes, and deserves further systematic evaluation.

Semi-rigid ureteroscopy: Proximal versus distal ureteral stones.

Objective:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of semi-rigid ureteroscopy in proximal and distal ureteral stones, and to compare the operative and perioperative characteristics between the two stone groups.Materials and Methods:We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent semi-rigid ureteroscopy for management of ureteral stones at the International Medical Center between June 2007 and September 2012. All stones were fragmented using Holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) laser lithotripter. Stones located above the pelvic brim are considered proximal and below it are distal.Results:One hundred and ninety-one patients were included. One hundred and three patients (54%) underwent ureteroscopy for proximal stones and 88 (46%) for distal stones. The stone size in the proximal group was 10 mm (±5.5) versus 8.6 mm (±5) in the distal group. The initial stone-free rate for proximal and distal calculi were 89–98.2%, respectively. The perioperative complication rate was higher in the proximal group 10% compared to the distal group which is 1.5% (P = 0.06). Both groups have the same average of hospital stay 1.2 days.Conclusion:Although there is a clinical difference between proximal and distal calculi groups in terms of complication and stone-free rates, this difference remained statistically insignificant (P = 0.06). Using a smaller caliber semi-rigid ureteroscopy combined with Holmium-YAG laser can be carried out as a day care procedure and showed a slightly higher risk in patients with proximal ureteral calculi which should be explained to the patient

The Gachon University Ureteral Narrowing score: A comprehensive standardized system for predicting necessity of ureteral dilatation to treat proximal ureteral calculi.

PurposeFor treating proximal ureteral calculi, treatment decision has been known still difficult to choose ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) or shockwave lithotripsy. The aims of our study are to identify the possible predictors for necessity of URS and to propose the Gachon University Ureteral Narrowing scoring system (GUUN score) as a helpful predictor.Materials and MethodsWe evaluated 83 consecutive patients who underwent semirigid URS due to proximal ureteral calculi between April 2011 and February 2014 by a single surgeon. We reviewed patient characteristics and pre- and postoperative parameters and surgical records. We divided the patients into 2 groups (group 1, nondilation group; group 2, dilation group) according to whether or not balloon dilation was performed. A stepwise logistic regression was performed to identify the factors that predict dilatation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted and areas under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated to GUUN score.ResultsMean patients' age and their stone size were 48.53±12.90 years and 7.79±2.57 cm, respectively. Significantly smaller stone size (p=0.009), lower stone density (p=0.005), and lower ureteral density differences between ureteral narrowing level and far distal ureter (UD) (p<0.001) were observed in group 1 (n=34) than in group 2 (n=49). GUUN score consists of age, stone size and UD (AUC, 0.938). Overall stone-free clearance rate was 85.5%.ConclusionsWe suggest that the GUUN score is an excellent scoring system to predict the necessity of ureteral dilatation for decision making whether or not to perform surgical manipulation.

Corrigendum: Correction of the unit for stone size in the ABSTRACT and RESULTS section. The Gachon University Ureteral Narrowing score: A comprehensive standardized system for predicting necessity of ureteral dilatation to treat proximal ureteral calculi.

[This corrects the article on p. 280 in vol. 57.].

RE: Semi-rigid ureteroscopy - Proximal versus distal ureteral stone.

I read with great interest the article “Semi‑rigid ureteroscopy: Proximal versus distal ureteral stone” by Alameddine et al.[1] This article highlights important findings regarding common endourology procedure which is ureteroscopy. Since development of semi‑rigid ureteroscope, various studies had been done to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy. In this study, the authors found that stone‑free rate was comparable between proximal (89%) and distal (98.2%) ureteric stone with insignificant difference in complication rate. This study was retrospective in nature which had some limitations. The limitation found in this study was the selection of ureteroscope size. The authors stated that the ureteroscope size used ranged between 8 and 11 French.[1] These ranges were including almost all sizes of available ureteroscopes. Whereas, in other study by Molina Escudero et al., the ureteroscope size used was only 7 French.[2] These created a bias in this study. Without precise selection of the ureteroscope size, the author concluded that the use of smaller caliber semi‑rigid ureteroscopy combined with holmium‑yttrium‑aluminum‑garnet laser for proximal ureteral calculi is safe.[1] In my opinion, the conclusion made by the authors was not proved by this study.

Modular flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the treatment of renal and proximal ureteral calculi: A single-surgeon experience of 382 cases.

To determine the safety and efficacy of modular flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the treatment of renal and proximal ureteral calculi, a retrospective chart review of a single surgeon's 3-year modular flexible ureteroscopy experience was performed. All of the patients were treated with modular flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy by a single surgeon. Stone-free status was defined as no fragments or a single fragment ≤4 mm in diameter at the 3-month follow-up. The procedure number, operative time, stone-free rates, repeat usage of the multilumen catheter, and perioperative complications were documented. The present study included 215 male patients and 167 female patients, with an average age of 48.5±13.7 years (range, 17-84 years). The mean stone size was 11.5±4.1 mm (range, 4-28 mm), and the mean total stone burden was 17.5±5.7 mm (range 15-46 mm). A total of 305 patients (79.8%) had a stone burden ≤20 mm, and 77 patients (20.2%) had a stone burden >20 mm. The mean number of primary procedures was 1.3±0.2 (range, 1-3). The stone-free rate following the first and the second procedure was 73.4 and 86.9%, respectively. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.1±1.2 days (range, 2-6 days). The highest clearance rates were observed for proximal ureteral stones (100%) and renal pelvic stones (88.7%), whereas the lowest clearance rates were observed for lower calyx stones (76.7%) and multiple calyx stones (77.8%). The higher the initial stone burden, the lower the postoperative stone-free rate (≤20 vs. >20 mm; 89.8 vs. 75.3%). The overall complication rate was 8.1%. The results of the present study suggest that modular flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy may be considered the primary method for the treatment of renal and proximal ureteral calculi in select patients, due to its acceptable efficacy, low morbidity, and relatively low maintenance costs.

Age-related delay in urinary stone clearance in elderly patients with solitary proximal ureteral calculi treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

We investigated the effects of aging on the stone-free rate (SFR) after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi. A total of 247 consecutive patients were retrospectively selected, classified into seven groups set at 10 year increments (from 20 to 90 years), and examined for SFR after SWL. According to our final analysis, 185 male and 62 female patients with an average age of 54.1 years had stones with a diameter of 11.5 mm and a density of 893.1 Hounsfield units. On average, SFR was 74.9 % at 3 months after 1.7 SWL sessions. SFR gradually reached ≥ 90 % for each age-group after 1.5-2 years. Median durations to achieve 50 % SFR were estimated to be 21 and 86 days for those in their 20 and 80 s, respectively. However, the difference between the two estimates was not significant (p = 0.064). The durations to achieve 50 % SFR for the other groups lay between these two estimates. Aging does not affect long-term SFR, but patients aged ≥ 80 years might experience delayed stone clearance within the first 12 months after SWL.