Comparative analysis of upper ureteral stones (> 15 mm) treated with retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy and ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy

Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of single upper ureteral calculi measuring 1 to 2 centimeters: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) and flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) in the treatment of single upper ureteral calculi measuring 1 to 2 centimeters.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis that combines a review of medical records with an outcomes management database. A total of 163 patients who underwent MPCNL and 137 patients who had FURS were identified between January 2017 and December 2021. Demographic data, operation time, hospitalization time, stone-free rate, and complication rate were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Preoperative general data of sex, age, BMI, serum creatinine, time of stone existence, stone hardness, stone diameter, preoperative hydronephrosis, and preoperative infection of the MPCNL group have no statistically significant difference with that of the FURS group. All MPCNL or FURS operations in both groups were successfully completed without any instances of reoperation or conversion to another surgical procedure. Patients who underwent MPCNL had a considerably reduced operation time (49.6 vs. 72.4 min; P<0.001), but a higher duration of hospitalization (9.1 vs. 3.9 days; P<0.001) compared to those who underwent FURS. The stone-free rate in the MPCNL group was superior to that of the FURS group, with a percentage of 90.8% compared to 71.5% (P<0.001). There was no statistically significant disparity in the rate of complications between the two groups (13.5% vs. 15.3%; P = 0.741).

CONCLUSION

Both MPCNL and FURS are viable and secure surgical choices for individuals with solitary upper ureteral calculi measuring 1 to 2 cm. The FURS procedure resulted in a shorter duration of hospitalization compared to MPCNL. However, it had a comparatively lower rate of successfully removing the stones and required a longer duration for the operation.There were no substantial disparities observed in the complication rate between the two groups.FURS is the preferable option for treating uncomplicated upper ureteral calculi, whereas MPCNL is the preferable option for treating complicated upper ureteral calculi.Prior to making treatment options, it is crucial to take into account the expertise of surgeons, the quality of the equipment, and the preferences of the patient.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

No.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones: a meta-analysis comparing clinical efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Upper urinary tract stones is the most common diseases in urology. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (fURL) are common treatment, but both their efficacy and safety are controversial. Thus we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PCNL and fURL in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones, providing a reference for clinical work.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and CNKI were searched through Apr. 1, 2019 to identify eligible studies. Data were analyzed by using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. Pooled relative risks (RRs) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed or random effects methods. Publication bias and sensitivity analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), fifteen cohort studies involving 1822 patients were included. Stone-free rate of PCNL was significantly high than that of fURL (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.12; P = 0.0004). The decline of hemoglobin in PCNL was significantly high than that of fURL (WMD: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.61; P < 0.0001). The number of blood transfusion was significantly greater in the PCNL compared to the fURL (RR: 5.04; 95% CI: 1.78, 14.24; P = 0.002). The incidence of postoperative bleeding or hematuria showed greater significantly difference in the PCNL compared to the fURL (RR: 2.72; 95% CI: 1.55, 4.75; P = 0.0005). Operation time, fever, infection, perforation, requiring drug analgesia was not significantly different between two surgical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of upper urinary tract stones, the stones clearance rate of PCNL is higher than fURL, and the safety of fURL is higher than PCNL.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of URSL, RPLU, and MPCNL for treatment of large upper impacted ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial

Background

There are three minimally invasive methods for the management of large upper impacted ureteral stones: mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL), transurethral ureteroscope lithotripsy (URSL), and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU). This study aimed to compare MPCNL, URSL, and RPLU, and to evaluate which one is the best choice for large upper impacted ureteral stones.

Methods

Between January 2012 and December 2015, at the Department of Urology, Huai’an First People’s Hospital, 150 consecutively enrolled patients with a large upper impacted ureteral stone (>15 mm) were included. The patients were randomly divided (1:1:1) into the MPCNL, URSL, and RPLU groups. The primary endpoint was success of stone removal measured 1 month postoperatively and the secondary endpoints were intraoperative and postoperative parameters and complications.

Results

Fifteen patients needed auxiliary ESWL after URSL, and 3 patients after MPCNL, but none after RPLU. The stone clearance rate was 96% (48/50) in the MPCNL group and 72% (33/46) in the URSL group. In the RPLU group the stones were completely removed and the stone clearance rate was 100% (48/48) (P = 0.021 vs. URSL; P = 0.083 vs. MPCNL). Operation-related complications were similar among the three groups (all P > 0.05). Hospital stay was shorter in the URSL group compared with MPCNL (P = 0.003). Operation time was the shortest with URSL and the longest with MPCNL (all P < 0.05).

Conclusions

MPCNL and RPUL are more suitable for upper ureteral impacted stones of >15 mm. URSL could be considered if the patient is not suitable for general anesthesia, or the patient requests transurethral uretroscopic surgery.

Trial registration

This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration number: ChiCTR-INR-17011507; Registration date: 2017–5-22).

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

Objective:

To compare the safety and effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) with transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TPLU) in cases of obstructive pyelonephritis secondary to large proximal ureteral stones.

Methods:

A series of 42 patients presenting with obstructive pyelonephritis due to proximal ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm were included from April 2006 to February 2015 in this comparative study. After drainage of pyonephrosis and resolution of sepsis, 22 patients treated with TPLU (Group I), and 20 patients were treated with F-URS (Group II). Preoperative patient and stone characteristics, procedure-related parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed for each group.

Results:

It was seen that both methods were effective in the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. However TPLU provided a higher stone- free rate (100% vs 80%. p=0.043) and lower retreatment rate. There was no difference between the groups for the operative time and complication rate. On the other hand, patients treated with F-URS had less postoperative pain (p=0.008), a shorter hospital stay (p<0.001) and a faster return to daily activities (p<0.001).

Conclusions:

The results of our study show that both F-URS and TPLU are safe and effective surgical procedures for treatment of large proximal ureteral stones after controlling obstructive pyelonephritis. However, TPLU has a higher stone-free rate with comparable operating time and complication rate as compared to F-URS. On the other hand F-URS has the advantages of less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay and faster return to daily activities.

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

OBJECTIVE

To compare safety and effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (L-RU) in treatment of proximal ureteral stones larger than 15 mm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 103 patients treated with L-RU (Group I), and 80 patients treated with F-URS (Group II) due to proximal ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm, in a single center. Patients' characteristics and procedure-related parameters including success rate, operation time, hospital stay, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, auxiliary procedures, and complications were compared between Groups I and II.

RESULTS

It was seen that both methods were effective in the treatment of large ureteral stones; however, R-LU provided a higher stone-free rate (100 vs. 87.5%), a lower complication rate (10.6 vs. 23.7%), and a shorter operation time (65.4 vs. 75.1 min). On the other hand, patients treated with F-URS had less postoperative pain, a shorter hospital stay, a faster return to daily activities.

CONCLUSIONS

For treatment of large proximal ureteral stones, L-RU provides significantly higher success and lower retreatment rate compared with F-URS. Our results also indicate that R-LU, which has been regarded as an invasive procedure is not as invasive as it is thought to be, and it must be kept in mind that F-URS may cause complications despite its noninvasive nature.

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) with retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) as two minimally invasive techniques in the management of proximal ureteral stones larger than 12 mm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2009 to October 2013, patients with impacted unilateral upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm were enrolled including 182 males and 93 females with a medium age of 40 years (22-72 years). Patients were randomized to receive URSL (139 cases) with semirigid ureteroscope or RPLU (136 cases).

RESULTS

Stone size was similar in RPLU and URSL groups (13.8 ± 1.9 vs 13.6 ± 1.4 mm, P = 0.312). Operating time and hospitalizing days in URSL group were significantly shorter than those in RPLU group (P < 0.001), whereas stone clearance rate was significantly higher in RPLU group (97.1 vs 89.9 %, P = 0.017). Ureteral strictures happened higher in URSL group (5 patients, 3.6 %) than RPLU group (2 patients, 1.5 %) with no statistical significance, while the strictures requiring surgical intervention were significantly higher in URSL group (4 cases) (2.9 vs 0 %, P = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

RPLU could provide better stone clearance rate than semirigid URSL for upper ureteral impacted stones larger than 12 mm. It may also reduce the chance of surgical intervention for postoperative ureteral stricture.

Initial experience of percutaneous nephrolithotomy combined with retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy in one-stage treatment of homolateral renal diseases

This study investigated the feasibility of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) combined with retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site partial nephrectomy (LESS-PN) in one-stage treatment of homolateral renal calculi and tumors. Between October 2010 and July 2014 one-stage PCNL combined LESS-PN surgery was performed in 23 patients with homolateral renal calculi and tumors. Patients included 17 male and 8 female, ranged from 31 to 66 years old with a median age of 42.7. Operative parameters and occurrence rate of complications were recorded. In all cases renal tumors were successfully removed without converting to open surgery. One-stage clearance rate for renal calculi was 21/23 (91.3%), leaving two cases for second-stage operation of flexible ureteroscope lithotomy. The operation time was 95-186 min; average 128 min. Intraoperative blood loss was 40-200 mL; average 130 mL. Median warm ischemia time was 23.8 ± 9.5 min. There were no serious post-operative complications such as massive hemorrhage or urine leakage. Length of stay was 5-7 days, average 6 days. There was no recurrence of renal calculus, renal tumors or ureterostenosis and kidney functions were normal. In conclusion, with good practice, one-stage combined operation of PCNL and retroperitoneal LESS-PN in removing homolateral renal tumors and calculi was safe, feasible and would potentially reduce the operative trauma.

Comparison of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal and mid-ureter stones

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and complications of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy with laparoscopic ureter laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in mid- or proximal portion of large ureteral stones.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed patients with large (>15 mm) ureteral stone and those who underwent ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (URS group) or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU group). The first attempt was considered successful in patients who had residual fragments smaller than 2 mm and no conversion of the primary procedure to another.

RESULTS

Sixty patients (URS group 29, LU group 31) met inclusion criteria. FURS was used as an adjunctive procedure in one patient for URS group and in two patients for LU group in the same season. LU had a higher success rate and the first-day stone-free rate when compared with URS. Number of procedures was also significantly higher in URS group. There was no difference in stone-free rates at the first and third months, and length of hospitalization and operation were higher in the LU group. Only two patients in the LU group and one patient in the URS group had major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is an effective option of large proximal and mid-ureter stone treatment; however, URS provides similar stone-free rates at three months as a minimal invasive procedure.

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for proximal ureteral calculi in selected patients

Objectives. To summarize our experience of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for ureteral calculi and evaluate the safety and efficiency of this procedure. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 197 patients with proximal ureteral calculi who accepted retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy from June 2005 to June 2014. Results. All procedures were performed successfully and the mean operating time and estimated blood loss were 87 min and 64 mL. The clearance rate was 98.5% and the rates of urine leak and ureteral stricture were 2.5% and 1.0%. Conclusions. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy is a safe and effective procedure for patients with complex stones or anatomic abnormalities, and, with experience of high volume series, it is also a reasonable choice as the primary treatment for such selected patients.

A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy and Semirigid Ureteroscopy for Upper Ureteral Stones >2 cm: A Single-Center Experience

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The optimal management method of upper ureteral stones >2 cm is still a challenge. We performed a prospective randomized comparison between laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for upper ureteral calculus >2 cm to evaluate safety and efficacy of both procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2010 and May 2012, 110 patients with a single radiopaque upper ureteral calculus >2 cm were included in the present study. Randomization was done in two groups-group A: LU was performed and group B: Ureteroscopy (URS) was performed using a 6/7.5F semirigid ureteroscope (Richard Wolf) with holmium laser intracorporeal lithotripsy. Statistical analysis was performed regarding demographic profile, success, retreatment, auxiliary procedure rates, and also complications.

RESULTS

Out of the total 110 patients, 54 patients were enrolled in group A and 56 patients were enrolled in group B. Mean stone size was 2.3±0.2 cm in group A versus 2.2±0.1 cm in group B (p=0.52). The overall 3-month stone-free rate was (50/50) 100% for group A versus (38/50) 76% for group B (p=0.02). The retreatment rate was significantly greater in group B than group A (8% vs. 0%, respectively; (p=0.01). Auxiliary procedure rate was higher in group B than in group A (26% vs. 0% respectively; p=0.001). The complication rate was 12% in group A versus 26% in group B (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For upper ureteral stones of size greater than 2 cm, LU has a greater stone clearance rate, comparable operating time, lesser need for auxiliary procedure, and complication rate as compared to URS.

A comparison of antegrade percutaneous and laparoscopic approaches in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones

Purpose. To compare the effectiveness and safety of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RLU) and percutaneous antegrade ureteroscopy (PAU) in which we use semirigid ureteroscopy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. Methods. Fifty-eight patients with large, impacted stones who had a history of failed shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and, retrograde ureterorenoscopy (URS) were included in the study between April 2007 and April 2014. Thirty-seven PAU and twenty-one RLU procedures were applied. Stone-free rates, operation times, duration of hospital stay, and follow-up duration were analyzed. Results. Overall stone-free rate was 100% for both groups. There was no significant difference between both groups with respect to postoperative duration of hospital stay and urinary leakage of more than 2 days. PAU group had a greater amount of blood loss (mean hemoglobin drops for PAU group and RLU group were 1.6 ± 1.1 g/dL versus 0.5 ± 0.3 g/dL, resp.; P = 0.022). RLU group had longer operation time (for PAU group and RLU group 80.1 ± 44.6 min versus 102.1 ± 45.5 min, resp.; P = 0.039). Conclusions. Both PAU and RLU appear to be comparable in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones when the history is notable for a failed retrograde approach or SWL. The decision should be based on surgical expertise and availability of surgical equipment.

A prospective comparative study between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy in the management of single large stone in the proximal ureter

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the difference and relative advantages between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) in the management of surgically indicated single large stone in the proximal ureter.

METHODS

Patients with single large stone in the proximal ureter with slight to moderate hydronephrosis were prospectively selected and assigned into groups of MPCNL and FURS on the basis of the patient's choice. Demographic data, operative duration, postoperative hospital stay, complication rate, and stone-free rate were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

From October 2010 to May 2012, 76 such patients were consecutively included into the study. No significant difference was found in preoperative demographics, including age, sex, and severity of hydronephrosis. Stone size was 15.6 ± 2.5 and 14.9 ± 2.3 mm (P = .349), operative duration 49.3 ± 11.7 and 67.2 ± 17.3 minutes (P <.001), postoperative hospital stay 4.2 ± 1.1 and 1.8 ± 0.8 days (P <.001), stone-free rate (residual ≤ 3 mm) 93.7% and 84.1% (P = .198), and complication rate over grade II (modified Clavien system) 12.5% and 6.8% (P = .398) in MPCNL and FURS groups respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both MPCNL in supine position and FURS are effective and safe surgical options for patients with single large stone in the proximal ureter, when indicated. FURS is associated with faster recovery and less invasiveness than MPCNL in supine position.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for the management of large proximal ureteric stones and the impact of this treatment on postoperative renal function.

METHODS

The data of 12 patients (7 men and 5 women; mean age, 68.5 ± 8.9 years) with large pyeloureteral junction (2 cases) and upper ureteral (10 cases) stones (25.3 ± 7.4 mm) that had undergone retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy were reviewed. Renal function was analyzed by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and renal scintigraphy using 99mTc-mercaptoacetyltriglycine (99mTc-MAG3) before and 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 129.5 ± 21.4 minutes, with a mean blood loss of 64.4 ± 78.2 mL. The mean duration of hospital stay after surgery was 6.4 ± 2.7 days, and the mean duration of stenting was 7.2 ± 1.7 weeks. A stone clearance rate of 100% was achieved, and no patient developed ureteric stricture. 99mTc-MAG3 scintigraphy showed that laparoscopic removal of calculi did not affect renal function, but did improve ureteral occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy is a safe and effective treatment option for reducing ureteral obstruction in select patients with large proximal ureteric stones.

Laparoscopic management in stone disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

While most renal and ureteral stones can be efficiently managed using endourologic techniques, the use of laparoscopy for the management of urolithiasis is increasing. The application of laparoscopy for stone removal will further reduce the need for open stone surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, pyelolithotomy, and anatrophic nephrolithotomy are highly successful techniques with regard to their one-session, high stone-free rates. These procedures could be considered as the preferred approaches when endourologic procedures are not available or have failed. Laparoscopic stone surgery (LSS) in patients with urinary tract anomalies offers a reliable minimally invasive procedure as an alternative to a complex endourologic technique.

SUMMARY

Although laparoscopy still has a limited role in the urologist's armamentarium for the surgical management of urolithiasis, it can further reduce the need for open stone surgery in complex circumstances. LSS duplicates its open counterpart and offers a high one-session, stone-free rate in most patients with a lower morbidity and quicker convalescence. More comparative studies are needed to define the role and indications of LSS in relation to endourologic and open techniques, especially in complex circumstances.

Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy: a single-center experience

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate success and complications of laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy at our center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From November 2008 until September 2011, 33 patients, including 22 men and 11 women, with a mean age of 45.3 years (range, 19-67 years), underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy at our center. Locations of stones were the upper, middle, and lower ureter in 29, 1, and 3 patients, respectively. Ten patients had a history of previous abdominal or pelvic surgery. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy was performed via a transperitoneal approach. Complications and outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean operation time was 85.48±15.11 minutes. Except for one stone migration and one conversion to open surgery, all the ureteral stones were extracted laparoscopically (94% success rate). A double J stent was inserted antegradely during the procedure and remained for about 1 month in all cases except in 1 patient in whom both antegrade insertion and ureteroscopic relocation were used. Postoperative hypercapnia was detected in a young patient, who recovered with conservative treatment. No visceral complication occurred. The mean hospital stay and the drain installation interval were 4.1 days (range, 3-9 days). The mean return to full activity was 11.91±4.65 days. Preoperative hydronephrosis resolved at follow-up ultrasonography (3 months later) in all patients except 2 cases, in whom intravenous pyelography showed no obstruction (memorial hydronephrosis).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy is a safe and effective treatment modality for skilled surgeons and a convenient option for patients. Challenges, such as lower ureteral stones, redo cases, and antegrade double J stent insertion, can be overcome by experience.

Comparative study of outcome in treating upper ureteral impacted stones using minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy with aid of patented system or transurethral ureteroscopy

OBJECTIVE

To determine an efficient method for treating upper ureteral impacted stones, we compared the outcome of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy with the aid of our patented system and transurethral ureteroscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 182 patients with complicated impacted upper ureteral stones above the level of L4 were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group 1 included 91 patients who were treated with minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy with the aid of a patented system. Group 2 included 91 patients who were treated with ureteroscopy. The patients underwent postoperative shock wave lithotripsy, when necessary. The operative time, stone clearance rate, operative complication markers (amount of intraoperative bleeding and postoperative fever rate), and cost of treatment were compared.

RESULTS

A significantly shorter operative time, greater rate of stone clearance, lower need for postoperative shock wave lithotripsy, and lower rate of postoperative fever was found in group 1 than in group 2 (P <.05). However, the cost of treatment and amount of intraoperative bleeding were significantly greater.

CONCLUSION

We believe minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy with the aid of the patented system could be the first choice in treating complicated impacted upper ureteral stones above the level of L4.

Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy

PURPOSE

The best treatment modalities for large proximal ureteral stones are controversial, and include extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureterolithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and open surgery. To the best of our knowledge extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, semirigid ureterolithotripsy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy have not been previously compared for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. Therefore, we compared these modalities for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 48 patients with large proximal ureteral stones (greater than 1 cm) were prospectively randomized and enrolled in the study at a single institution between 2008 and 2010. Eligible patients were assigned to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, semirigid ureterolithotripsy or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.

RESULTS

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy had a 35.7% success rate, semirigid ureterolithotripsy 62.5% and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy 93.3%. Stone-free rates showed a statistically significant difference among the groups (p = 0.005). Patients treated with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy vs semirigid ureterolithotripsy vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy required fewer treatment sessions (mean ± SD 1.9 ± 0.3 vs 2.2 ± 0.6 vs 2.9 ± 1.4, p = 0.027). Neither major nor long-term complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Proximal ureteral stone treatment requires multiple procedures until complete stone-free status is achieved. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy is associated with higher success rates and fewer surgical procedures, but with more postoperative pain, longer procedures and a longer hospital stay. Although it is associated with the highest success rates for large proximal ureteral calculi, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy remains a salvage, second line procedure, and it seems more advantageous than open ureterolithotomy. At less well equipped centers, where semirigid ureterolithotripsy or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is not available, it remains a good treatment option.