Proximal Ureteral Stones Research Articles

Surgical Approaches to Proximal Ureteral Stones >1 Cm: A Comparative Study of M-PCNL and Semirigid URSL

Background: For the management of proximal ureteric calculi modalities like Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, UreteroRenoscopic Lithotripsy, and Retrograde Intra-Renal Surgery have been commonly used. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and semirigid Ureterorenoscopic Lithotripsy in terms of the total operation time, stone clearance rate, duration of hospital stays, post-operative hemoglobin drop, and peri-operative complications. Methods: This study was a hospital-based, prospective, comparative study conducted in the Urology Unit of Nepalgunj Medical College (NGMC). Eighty patients were included in the study, divided into two groups: 40 patients in the m-PCNL group (Group A) and 40 patients in the URSL group (Group B). Results: The mean age of the total patients was 36.34 ± 12.68 years. The mean duration of surgical procedure in m-PCNL Group was 26.93±9.43 minutes and in URSL it was 20.88±7.06 minutes. The mean duration of hospital stay in m-PCNL Group was 3.63±1.10 days and in URSL group it was 2.70±1.24 days. In m-PCNL, 5 cases (12.5%) had fever, 2 cases (5%) had hematuria and in URSL, 10 cases (25%) had a fever, 7 cases (17.5%) had hematuria and 1 case (2.5%) had dyspnea because of pulmonary complication. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that both m-PCNL and URSL can be done for proximal ureteric calculi >1cm but m-PCNL has significantly better stone clearance with no residual stone and thus concludes m-PCNL is better than semirigid URSL for the management of proximal ureteric calculi greater than 1cm.

Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy versus antegrade flexible ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones 1-2cm, a prospective randomized multicenter study.

To compare the outcomes of using Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy and antegrade flexible ureteroscopy to treat proximal ureteric stones of sizes 1-2cm. A prospective randomized multicenter study included patients who had proximal ureteric stones 1-2cm, amenable for ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy between August 2023 and February 2024. Two hundred thirty patients were divided evenly into two treatment groups. Group I included patients treated with antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser stone fragmentation, and Group II included patients treated with retrograde ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy. The study groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, stone access success, operation time, reoperation rates, peri-operative complications, and stone-free status. Group I included 114 patients, while Group II included 111. The mean age of the patients was 33.92 ± 10.37years, and the size of the stones was 15.88 ± 3mm. The study groups had comparable demographics and stone characteristics. The mean operative time was significantly longer in group I than in group II (102.55 ± 72.46min vs. 60.98 ± 14.84min, respectively, P < 0.001). Most reported complications were MCCS grades I and II, with no significant difference between the study groups. The stone-free rate after four weeks was 92.1% and 81.1% for groups I and II, respectively, which increased to 94.7% and 85.6% after eight weeks (P > 0.05). Antegrade flexible ureteroscopy is equivalent to retrograde ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones regarding stone-free status and procedure-related morbidity. However, the antegrade approach has a longer operative time, greater fluoroscopy exposure, and longer hospital stays.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact of previously failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on ureterorenoscopy outcomes in upper urinary tract stones: a prospective comparative study.

We sought to prospectively evaluate the impact of previously failed SWL on subsequent URS outcomes in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones. Between May 2021 and May 2023, one hundred thirty-six patients with proximal ureteral stones < 1.5cm and renal stones < 2.5cm who were candidates for URS were prospectively assigned to a non-SWL group, which included patients without a history of failed SWL before URS, and a post-SWL group, which included patients with a history of failed SWL before URS. The success rate was the primary outcome. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared. The stone-free rate was 83.3% in the post-SWL group versus 81.3% in the non-SWL group, and 8.3% in the post-SWL group versus 9.4% in the non-SWL group had clinically insignificant residual fragments. There was no significant difference in the stone-free rate or success rate between the groups. No significant differences in intraoperative fluoroscopy time, operative time, intraoperative stone appearance, perioperative complications, or the presence of embedded fragments in the ureteral mucosa were detected between the two groups. Compared with patients who underwent primary URS, patients who underwent salvage URS for upper urinary tract stones had similar stone-free rates, success rates, operative times, fluoroscopy times, and complication rates without any significant differences.

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

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

Analysis of Various Laparoscopic Pediatric Urology Surgeries: Five-Year Experience of a Single Institution.

Background In this study, we aim to report our single-center experience with laparoscopic pediatric urological surgeries. We aim to determine the feasibility of various urological and urogenital laparoscopic procedures and the tricks that increase surgical success. Methodology Data from 98 patients who underwent laparoscopic urological and/or urogenital procedures for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in our clinic between June 2018 and February 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. All surgeries were performed by the same surgical team. Laparoscopic procedures included orchidopexy, gonadectomy, vaginoplasty, hysterectomy, pyeloplasty, nephrectomy/partial nephrectomy, ureteroneocystostomy, bladder diverticulum excision, renal cyst excision, proximal ureter stone removal, oophorectomy, ovarian detorsion, oophoropexy, and lymph node excision for diagnostic purposes. The surgical planning of the patients was based on the decisions of the pediatric nephrology, pediatric endocrinology, and pediatric oncology departments and the multidisciplinary council. Demographic characteristics of the patients, surgical indications, and intraoperative data, as well as postoperative pathological diagnoses and complications, were recorded. All patients underwent a transperitoneal approach. The duration of the operation was obtained from anesthesia records and defined as the time from the beginning of the surgical incision to the closure of the skin incision. Results Of the patients, 54 were males and 44 were females. The median age was 7.8 years. No complications other than grade 1 according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were observed in our patients. As different types of surgeries were analyzed, the mean operative duration was estimated. Conclusions The laparoscopic method should be performed by surgeons experienced in advanced surgeries in pediatric urology. It is critical to consider the difference in the size of pediatric patients in preparation for laparoscopic surgery to minimize technical and ergonomic problems. We believe that each surgery has its specific tricks and that these should be a part of laparoscopy training. Moreover, developing and sharing this information would be very useful for pediatric urologists.

Comparison Between Retrograde and Antegrade Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy for the Management of Medium-Sized Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Randomized Prospective Study.

This study aimed to present the outcomes of retrograde and antegrade ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones ranging in size from 10 to 20 millimeters in diameter. From March 2023 to December 2023, 70 patients were included in this prospective randomized double-arm interventional study. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (35 patients) had semi-rigid retrograde ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy, and Group 2 (35 patients) had semi-rigid antegrade ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. In terms of length of hospitalization, there was a statistically significant distinction between the groups that were evaluated (p = 0.001). Group (1) showed a statistically significant distinction in Hb and HCT levels before and after the procedure (p < 0.05), whereas Group (2) showed a similar difference in Hb, creatinine, and HCT levels before and after the operation (p < 0.05). The antegrade group had much more hemorrhage than the retrograde group. Reduced hemoglobin (p = 0.008) and hemoglobin saturation (p = 0.029) were most noticeable in the antegrade group. Regarding stone-free rates (SFRs), no statistically significant difference was noted between the groups (p = 0.643). Both retrograde and antegrade ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy are dependable and successful for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. For medium-sized proximal ureteral stones (10-20 mm), retrograde ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy may be the first option due to its shorter hospital stays, decreased bleeding rates, blood transfusion needs, and temporary rise in serum creatinine.

The reverse Trendelenburg position in proximal ureteral stone management: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionUreteroscopy lithotripsy (URSL) presents a therapeutic option for patients with proximal ureteral calculi warranting active removal. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of the reverse Trendelenburg (RT) position during this procedure. MaterialsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing RT versus standard positioning (STD) in patients undergoing URSL for proximal ureteral stones. Heterogeneity was measured with the Cochran's Q test, I2 statistics, and prediction intervals (PI). A DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was utilized for all outcomes. ResultsFour studies encompassing 505 patients undergoing URSL were analyzed. Among the studied participants, 293 (58%) underwent RT positioning. Overall, RT was associated with a lower average incidence of stone retropulsion (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.27–0.65; I2=48%; PI 0.08–2.10) and a higher mean stone-free rate (RR 1.33; 95% CI 1.18–1.49; I2=0%). However, no significant difference between groups was found in the mean rate of overall complications (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.40–1.43; I2=51%; PI 0.00–520.22) and operative time (MD –0.65; 95% CI –9.58–8.27; I2=94%; PI –111.95–110.65). In those with proximal ureteral stones undergoing RT positioning at only the 20° angle, there was a reduction in stone retropulsion without any measured heterogeneity (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.23–0.52; I2=0%). ConclusionThese findings suggest that RT positioning is effective in improving outcomes for patients with proximal ureteral stones undergoing URSL, and its use should be considered during the procedure.

Optimal parameter settings of thulium fiber laser for ureteral stone lithotripsy: a comparative study in two different testing environments.

This study aims to identify optimal parameters for using Thulium fiber lasers (TFL) in ureteral stone lithotripsy to ensure laser safety and maximize efficacy. Our goal is to improve the outcomes of single-use semi-rigid ureteroscopy for treating stones located in the proximal ureter. A clinically relevant thermal testing device was designed to investigate heating effects during TFL stone fragmentation. The device was utilized to identify safe power thresholds for TFL at various irrigation rates. Three other devices were used to assess varying pulse energy effects on stone fragmentation efficiency, dusting, retropulsion, and depth of tissue vaporization. Comparative experiments in fresh porcine renal units were performed to validate the efficacy and safety of optimal TFL parameters for semi-rigid ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stone procedures. Our study found that the improved device generated a higher thermal effect. Furthermore, the safe power threshold for laser lithotripsy increased as the irrigation rate was raised. At an irrigation rate of 40ml/min, it is safe to use an average power of less than 30 watts. Although increasing pulse energy has a progressively lower effect on fragmentation and dust removal efficiency, it did lead to a linear increase in stone displacement and tissue vaporization depth. Thermal testing showed 20W (53.87 ± 2.67°C) indicating potential urothelial damage. In our study of laser lithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones, the group treated with 0.3J pulses had several advantages compared to the 0.8J group: Fewer large fragments (> 4mm): 0 vs. 1.67 fragments (1-2.25), p = 0.002, a lower number of collateral tissue injuries: 0.50 (0-1.25) vs. 2.67 (2-4), p = 0.011, and lower stone retropulsion grading: 0.83 (0.75-1) vs. 1.67 (1-2), p = 0.046. There was no significant difference in operating time between the groups (443.33 ± 78.30s vs. 463.17 ± 75.15s, p = 0.664). These findings suggest that TFL irradiation generates a greater thermal effect compared to non-irradiated stones. Furthermore, the thermal effect during laser lithotripsy is influenced by both power and irrigation flow rate. Our study suggests that using a power below 15W with an irrigation flow rate of 20ml/min is safe. Moreover, a pulse energy of 0.3J appears to be optimal for achieving the best overall stone fragmentation effect.

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

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

Safety of single-use flexible ureteroscopy for dusting of upper urinary tract calculi in children

BackgroundFlexible ureteroscopy offers numerous advantages, such as increased reach, superior stone-free rate, reduced risk of bleeding, minimal surgical trauma, and faster recovery time. There are few studies discussing the effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteroscopy in children, and none so far have addressed its safety. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a single-use flexible ureteroscope for treating upper urinary tract stones in children.MethodsThis study included children with single upper urinary tract stones measuring less than 2 cm who underwent single-use flexible ureteroscopy between October 2020 and January 2023. We assessed the following patient characteristics: age, gender, stone type, size, position, pre and postoperative stent placements, use of a ureteral access sheath, stone-free rate, operation duration, and the rate of complications. A patient was considered stone-free if there were no residual stone particles larger than 3 mm after surgery.ResultsFlexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy were undertaken for 44 participants, with an average age of 8.5 years (range: 2–16 years). The typical stone size was 14 mm (range: 6–20 mm). The average operation time was 74 min (range 35–110 min). Ureteral access sheaths were used in 81.8% (36 out of 44) of procedures. After a single FURS session, 86.36% (38 out of 44) of patients achieved stone-free status. Postoperative JJ stent application was noted in 86.4% (38 out of 44) of patients. Complications were categorized using the Calvien system, revealing that 25% (11 out of 44) of patients experienced mild hematuria, colic, and low-grade fever (Calvien I). No severe side effects like mucosal avulsion or ureteral perforation were reported.ConclusionIn the short-term, single-use flexible ureteroscopy is a safe and effective method for managing single renal and proximal ureteric stones, measuring 2 cm or less, in children.

A comparison between vapor tunnel and virtual basket for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones using holmium:YAG laser (Cyber Ho): which is the best tool to reduce retropulsion?

To compare vapor tunnel (VT) and virtual basket (VB) tools to reduce retropulsion in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. Patients with a single proximal ureteral stone were randomly assigned to holmium laser lithotripsy with the use of VT (Group A) or VB (Group B) tool. The 150W holmium:YAG cyber Ho generator was used. We compared operative time, dusting time, need for flexible ureteroscopy due to stone push-up and occurrence of ureteral lesions. The stone-free rate (SFR) and the occurrence of postoperative ureteral strictures were assessed. 186 patients were treated, of which 92 with the VT (49.5%, Group A) and 94 with the VB (50.5%, Group B). Mean stone size was 0.92 vs. 0.91cm in Groups A vs. B (p = 0.32). Mean total operative time and dusting time were comparable between groups. 7 (7.6%) vs. 6 (6.4%) patients in Groups A vs. B required a flexible ureteroscope because of stone push-up (p = 0.12). Ureteral mucosa lesions were observed in 15 (16.3%) vs. 18 (19.1%) cases in the VT vs. VB group (p = 0.09). 1-Month SFR was comparable (97.8% vs. 95.7%, p = 0.41). We observed one case (1.1%) of postoperative ureteral stricture in the VT group vs. two cases (2.1%) in the VB group (p = 0.19). VT and VB are equally safe and effective tools in reducing retropulsion of ureteral stones. Operative time, dusting time and SFR were comparable. They also equally avoided stone push-up and prevented ureteral lesions, which may later occur in ureteral strictures.

Ureteral stricture rate after endoscopic treatments for urolithiasis and related risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis.

We aimed to accurately determine ureteral stricture (US) rates following urolithiasis treatments and their related risk factors. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines using databases from inception to November 2023. Studies were deemed eligible for analysis if they included ≥ 18 years old patients with urinary lithiasis (Patients) who were subjected to endoscopic treatment (Intervention) with ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (Comparator) to assess the incidence of US (Outcome) in prospective and retrospective studies (Study design). A total of 43 studies were included. The pooled US rate was 1.3% post-SWL and 2.1% post-PCNL. The pooled rate of US post-URS was 1.9% but raised to 2.7% considering the last five years' studies and 4.9% if the stone was impacted. Moreover, the pooled US rate differed if follow-ups were under or over six months. Patients with proximal ureteral stone, preoperative hydronephrosis, intraoperative ureteral perforation, and impacted stones showed higher US risk post-endoscopic intervention with odds ratio of 1.6 (P = 0.05), 2.6 (P = 0.009), 7.1 (P < 0.001), and 7.47 (P = 0.003), respectively. The overall US rate ranges from 0.3 to 4.9%, with an increasing trend in the last few years. It is influenced by type of treatment, stone location and impaction, preoperative hydronephrosis and intraoperative perforation. Future standardized reporting and prospective and more extended follow-up studies might contribute to a better understanding of US risks related to calculi treatment.

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

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

Large renal stone with ureteral stone caused by 15 years of forgotten stent

Introduction: Ureteral stents are commonly placed in urologic surgeries, and are especially indispensable in endourologic surgeries. But if it remains for more than 6 months, the probability of migration and calculus formation of the stent increases substantially. Case description: A 57-year-old female came to the urology outpatient clinic due to left flank pain. She had a history of open left nephrolithotomy 15 years ago and had ureteral stent placed. She also had a history of open vesicolithotomy surgery 4 years ago and was told to have a follow-up surgery for the remaining kidney stone but she didn’t come because of the limited level of local medical services and her pain tolerance. NCCT study showed moderate left hydronephrosis with a high volume renal stone measuring 60x35x20 mm (HU 1.021), two proximal ureteral stones measuring 40x10x10 mm (HU 1.021) and 60x5x5 mm (HU 1.021) with ureteral stent shadow in the center. She had elevated urea nitrogen and creatinine levels, microscopic hematuria, leukocyturia, and positive urine bacteria. The patient underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with endoscopic combined intra-renal surgery (ECIRS) for stone removal. Postoperative recovery was successful with no residual stones and significant pain relief. Conclusion: The case underscores the need for patient compliance, adequate practitioner counseling, and timely medical attention. The prevention of complications is the best treatment, and multimodal endourologic approaches can safely remove forgotten, encrusted double J stents.

Choosing Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Versus Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Proximal Ureteric Stones

Background Proximal ureteric stone is one of the common presentations in renal stones disease. Safety, efficacy and stone free rate of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy are controversial. Thus, we aim to compare the efficacy, safety and stone free rates of two procedures.MethodsThis was a retrospective observational study including 60 cases divided into group A (Retrograde-intrarenal Surgery) and Group B (Mini-Percutaneous Surgery) between September 2022 to August 2023. Ethical approval was obtained from Institutional review Committee (Reference number: CMC-IRC/079/080-100). Convenience sampling was done.ResultsThe mean age in group A was 43.83 ± 16.92 years and in group B was 46.33 ± 15.78 years with no significant p value (p = 0.112). Post operative haemoglobin changes in group A was 0.266 ± 0.279 gram% and in group B was 1.493 ±0.360 gram% with significant P value of 0.001. Similarly the duration of operation in Group A was 42.43± 13.783 minutes and in group B was 36.30 ± 7.173 minutes with significant P value 0.035. However the stone free rate was higher in group B than Group A without significant P value of 0.064. Both of the groups have minor post operative complication of fever and mild haeamaturia.Conclusions The stones clearance rate of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy is better than retrograde intrarenal surgery and the safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery is higher than of mini percutaneous surgery.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of open and laparoscopic proximal ureterolithotomy for ureteral stone management: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Despite advances in non-invasive and minimally invasive techniques, some proximal ureteral stones with impaction require open or laparoscopic surgery. No systematic reviews or meta-analyses have compared the efficacy and safety of open proximal ureterolithotomy and laparoscopic approaches. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between open and laparoscopic proximal ureterolithotomy for ureteral stone management. Following the PRISMA guidelines, systematic searches were conducted in five databases (PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and ProQuest) to identify articles comparing those two surgical approaches. Operative time, blood loss, pain score, hospital stay, recovery time, and complications were collected and compared. Heterogeneity-based meta-analysis with random-effects or fixed-effects models were conducted. Two randomized controlled trials and four observational cohort studies with 386 participants met the criteria. Open surgery had significantly less time than laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (mean difference (MD): 26.63 minutes, 95%CI: 14.32, 38.94; p<0.0001). Intraoperative blood loss (MD: -1.27 ml; 95%CI: -6.64, 4.09; p=0.64) and overall complications (OR: 0.68; 95%CI: 0.41, 1.15; p=0.16) were not significantly different between two approaches. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy reduced visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores (MD: -2.53; 95%CI: -3.47, -2.03; p<0.00001), hospital stays (MD: -2.40 days; 95%CI: -3.42 to -1.38 days; p=0.03), and recovery time (MD: -9.67 days; 95%CI: -10.81 to -8.53 days; p<0.00001). In conclusion, open proximal ureterolithotomy had less time, but laparoscopic surgery reduced postoperative pain, hospital stay, and recovery time. Both methods had comparable intraoperative bleeding and complications.

Surgeon, and Institution Characteristics Associated Surgical Preferences in the Pediatric KIDney Stone Care Improvement Network

OBJECTIVETo reveal barriers and opportunities to implement evidence for the management of pediatric kidney stone disease, we determined surgeon and institutional factors associated with preferences for the type of surgical intervention for kidney and ureteral stones. METHODSWe conducted a cross-sectional study of urologists participating in the Pediatric KIDney Stone Care Improvement Network (PKIDS) trial. Questionnaires ascertained strengths of urologists’ preferences for types of surgery as well as characteristics of participating urologists and institutions. The outcome was the strength of preferences for ureteroscopy, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for four scenarios for which two alternative procedures are recommended by the AUA guidelines: A) 2 cm kidney stone, B) 9 mm proximal ureteral stone, C) 1.5 cm lower pole kidney stone, D) 1 cm non-lower pole kidney stone. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to identify unique clusters of factors that explain surgical preferences. RESULTSOne hundred forty-eight urologists at 29 sites completed surveys. Stated preferences were highly skewed except for the choice between ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for a 1.5 cm kidney stone. SWL ownership and local practice patters most frequently associated with the strength of surgeons’ preferences for the type of surgery. PCA revealed that three clusters of stone, patient and heterogenous characteristics explained 30% of the variance in preferences. CONCLUSIONSThere is wide variation in the strengths of preferences for surgical interventions supported by current guidelines that are partially explained by surgeon and institutional characteristics. These results reveal opportunities to develop strategies for guidelines that consider real-world drivers of care.