Treatment Of Proximal Ureteral Calculi Research Articles

Comparison of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and retrograde lithotripsy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones

The current approach in the surgical treatment of ureteral calculi involves the use of endourological procedures such as retrograde ureteroscopy with lithotripsy or percutaneous antegrade lithotripsy in the proximal ureter. Ureterolithotomy as a treatment method is of an auxiliary nature and is used when endourological intervention is impossible or in case of intraoperative collisions during access conversion. However, there are several comparative studies on lithotripsy and lithotomy.The aim. Comparative analysis of the outcomes of laparoscopic lithotomy and retrograde lithotripsy in the surgical treatment of proximal ureteral calculi, as well as the search for predictors of prolonged disability.Materials and methods. A prospective randomized multicenter study included 53 patients with an established diagnosis of ureterolithiasis who were treated in the period 2018–2021 in urological hospitals in Irkutsk. All patients were divided into two comparison groups: Lithotomy group (group 1; n = 30) and Lithotripsy group (group 2; n = 23).Results. When analyzing the results of the study, it was found that the level of complications of class II–III according to Clavien – Dindo was statistically comparable in both groups (p > 0.05). However, in absolute and relative terms, the prevalence of this indicator was noted during retrograde ureterolithotripsy. According to hard endpoints (reoperation, presence of residual stones or migration during the operation), 29 (96.6 %) patients of group 1 and 17 (73.4 %) patients of group 2 (p = 0.514) were successfully operated on.Conclusion. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy may be offered to patients with large proximal ureteral stones as an alternative treatment option with better residual stone freedom but generally similar overall outcomes and complication rates.

MP027 - Holmium-YAG laser lithotripsy versus ballistic lithotripsy for treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: A prospective, randomized, bicentric and comparative study

MP027 - Holmium-YAG laser lithotripsy versus ballistic lithotripsy for treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: A prospective, randomized, bicentric and comparative study

Cost-effectiveness of anti-retropulsive devices varies according to the locations of proximal ureteral stones: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundAnti-retropulsive devices are often used to prevent stone migration in the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi. They are helpful. However, in the meantime, they also add extra expenses. This study was carried out to investigate the best criteria for treating proximal ureteral stones with anti-retropulsive devices.MethodsData from all patients who underwent ureteroscopic holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for solitary upper ureteral stones in 2018 were collected. Patients who encountered stone retropulsion during the process of inserting the ureteroscope were excluded. Patients were divided into either group URS or group URS + ARD depending on whether the anti-retropulsive device was used. Then, the stone-free rate, expenses and other criteria were compared between groups according to stone location. Stone-free was defined as no stones present.ResultsFor stones located ≤ 30 mm from the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ), the stone-free rates for the URS group were 80% and 80% at one day and one month after the operation, respectively. Those for the URS + ARD group were 71.4% and 78.6% at one day and one month, respectively. For stones located 31–90 mm from the UPJ, the stone-free rates were 84.7% and 84.7% for the URS group and 89.6% and 95.5% for the URS + ARD group at one day and one month, respectively. A statistically significant difference occurred at one month. For stones located > 90 mm from the UPJ, the two groups were both stone free. In the URS + ARD group, expenses were higher. In addition, the mean diameter of residual stones derived from stones located at 31–90 mm from the UPJ was statistically smaller, and 4 of 7 residual stones passed spontaneously within one month, which was obviously more than that in other locations and the URS group. Other outcomes, including operation time and postoperative stay, showed no significant difference between the groups.ConclusionAnti-retropulsive devices are indeed helpful, but they might be cost-effective for stones located solely in the middle part of the upper ureter, not for those too close to or far from the ureteropelvic junction.

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.

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.

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.

Treatment of Ureteral and Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with ureteral or renal stones treated with ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy using HM3 (Dornier®) and nonHM3 lithotripters, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A systematic literature search identified 6, 4 and 3 randomized, controlled trials of treatment of distal and proximal ureteral stones, and renal stones, respectively, published between 1995 and 2010. Overall stone-free, re-treatment and complication rates were calculated by meta-analytical techniques. Based on the randomized, controlled trials evaluated the treatment of distal ureteral stones with semirigid ureteroscopy showed a 55% greater probability (pooled RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13-2.56) of stone-free status at the initial assessment than treatment with shock wave lithotripsy. Patients treated with semirigid ureteroscopy were also less likely to require re-treatment than those treated with shock wave lithotripsy (nonHM3) (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.23). The risk of complications was no different between the 2 modalities. Only 2 of the 4 randomized, controlled trials identified for proximal ureteral stones evaluated flexible ureteroscopy and each focused specifically on the treatment of stones 1.5 cm or greater, limiting their clinical relevance. The degree of heterogeneity among the studies evaluating renal stones was so great that it precluded any meaningful comparison. Semirigid ureteroscopy is more efficacious than shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones. To our knowledge there are no relevant randomized, controlled trials of flexible ureteroscopy treatment of proximal ureteral calculi of a size commonly noted in the clinical setting. Collectively the comparative effectiveness of ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral and renal calculi is poorly characterized with no meaningful published studies.

MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATES THAT STONE SIZE IS ONLY INDEPENDENT PREDICTOR OF SWL SUCCESS IN CHILDREN

We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with ureteral or renal stones treated with ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy using HM3 (Dornier®) and nonHM3 lithotripters, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.A systematic literature search identified 6, 4 and 3 randomized, controlled trials of treatment of distal and proximal ureteral stones, and renal stones, respectively, published between 1995 and 2010. Overall stone-free, re-treatment and complication rates were calculated by meta-analytical techniques.Based on the randomized, controlled trials evaluated the treatment of distal ureteral stones with semirigid ureteroscopy showed a 55% greater probability (pooled RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13–2.56) of stone-free status at the initial assessment than treatment with shock wave lithotripsy. Patients treated with semirigid ureteroscopy were also less likely to require re-treatment than those treated with shock wave lithotripsy (nonHM3) (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.08–0.23). The risk of complications was no different between the 2 modalities. Only 2 of the 4 randomized, controlled trials identified for proximal ureteral stones evaluated flexible ureteroscopy and each focused specifically on the treatment of stones 1.5 cm or greater, limiting their clinical relevance. The degree of heterogeneity among the studies evaluating renal stones was so great that it precluded any meaningful comparison.Semirigid ureteroscopy is more efficacious than shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones. To our knowledge there are no relevant randomized, controlled trials of flexible ureteroscopy treatment of proximal ureteral calculi of a size commonly noted in the clinical setting. Collectively the comparative effectiveness of ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral and renal calculi is poorly characterized with no meaningful published studies.

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Large Ureteral Stones Using HM3 Lithotriptor

We assessed the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for large (more than 10 mm) ureteral calculi with the unmodified Dornier HM3 lithotriptor. A total of 96 consecutive patients with large ureteral stones were treated with shock wave lithotripsy using an unmodified HM3 lithotriptor. Patients, stone characteristics, preliminary treatment before shock wave lithotripsy, additional procedures after shock wave lithotripsy, complications and clinical outcomes were assessed. Between 2000 and 2003 a total of 96 patients (75 males, 21 females, mean age 51 years [range 16 to 81]) with large ureteral stones underwent shock wave lithotripsy. Average stone size was 14 mm (range 10 to 22), 90 stones were calcified, and 66 stones were located in the upper ureter, 20 in the mid ureter and 10 in the distal ureter. A total of 77 (80.2%) patients underwent a single shock wave lithotripsy session, 18 (18.7%) underwent 2 sessions and 1 (1.1%) patient underwent 3 sessions. The overall stone-free rate was 86.5% (83 patients). Complications occurred in 10 (10.4%) patients. Shock wave lithotripsy failed in 13 (13.5%) patients who were successfully treated with ureteroscopy. Our data show that shock wave lithotripsy for large ureteral stones along the entire ureter with the unmodified HM3 lithotriptor has a high success rate with minimal morbidity. We recommend it as first line treatment.

Treatment Options for Proximal Ureteral Urolithiasis: Review and Recommendations

The treatment of proximal ureteral calculi has been altered markedly by recent developments in shock wave lithotripsy (bypass, pushback and in situ), ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous stone removal. In an effort to discern the proper role of these newer treatment options with respect to ureterolithotomy (flank approach or dorsal lumbotomy), we completed a multicentered study in which 142 upper ureteral stone patients in 7 different treatment categories were reviewed retrospectively and contacted for convalescence data. From these data we conclude that before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy an upper ureteral stone should be manipulated until it is either pushed back to the kidney or bypassed with a stent. This maneuver should result in successful extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in more than 90 per cent of the patients. For those few patients with an impacted upper ureteral calculus ureterorenoscopy is recommended. Given the presently available treatment modalities we conclude that less than 3 per cent of all upper ureteral calculi will require ureterolithotomy. In this last circumstance a dorsal lumbotomy incision appears to be less morbid and yet as effective as anterior ureterolithotomy.