Management of 10–15-mm Proximal Ureteral Stones: Ureteroscopy or Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy?

Urolithiasis management: An umbrella review on the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus the ureteroscopic approach

This Umbrella Review aims to gather high-quality evidence on urolithiasis outcomes and complications, comparing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). We incorporated systematic reviews, some containing meta-analyses, into two separate reports, focusing on quantitative and qualitative results. Additionally, when data permitted, a secondary meta-analysis was conducted using final effect estimates from multiple meta-analyses. Stone-free rate (SFR) served as the primary outcome, with complications, retreatment, and hospital stay as secondary outcomes. Adhering to Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines, we initially screened 282 titles, narrowed down to 166 titles and abstracts, ultimately selecting 55 full-text articles for review. Of these, 22 met our inclusion criteria for the umbrella review. We evaluated study quality using JBI criteria, excluding five low-quality studies. Analysis showed ESWL had lower SFR compared to RIRS (RR: 0.577, 95% CI: 0.482-0.692) and URSL (RR: 0.570, 95% CI: 0.450-0.722); lower overall risk compared to ureteroscopy (RR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.51-0.66). ESWL had fewer complications than RIRS (p < 0.001), but lower SFR than ureteroscopy. However, the need for retreatment and auxiliary procedures in RIRS and URSL were lower than that in ESWL. In contrast, individuals undergoing ureteroscopy experienced a greater frequency of complications and longer duration of operation compared to those undergoing ESWL.

Beta-human chorionic gonadotropin, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, cancer antigen 125, and carcinoembryonic antigen as prognostic and predictive biological markers in bladder cancer

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the prognostic potential of the Beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG), Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125), and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) tumor markers for bladder cancer.

METHODS

We analyzed the records of 369 patients who underwent radical cystectomy for urothelial cancer (UC) between October 2012 until December 2019. Levels of CA19-9, CA125, CEA, and β-hCG before radical cystectomy were measured in all patient samples, and serum biomarker cutoff values were used as normal and elevated values.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The proportion of abnormal β-hCG (P<0.001), CA19-9 (P<0.001), and CA125 (P=0.033) was significantly higher in locally advanced bladder UC than in organ-confined bladder UC. In patients with preoperative β-hCG and CA125 abnormality, there was poor prognosis of recurrence-free survival (RFS)(P=0.003, P=0.042) and overall survival (OS) (P=0.003, P=0.002). Using the Cox multivariate regression analysis, both β-hCG (HR: 3.88, 95% CI: 1.43-10.25) and CA125 (HR: 6.21, 95% CI: 1.34-32.16) were found to be significant independent factors for predicting OS and RFS. In addition, patients with a high number of increased tumor markers showed significantly worse OS ((P<0.001) and RFS (P=0.002) than patients with a low number of increased tumor markers. In conclusion, serum β-hCG and CA125 levels could potentially be used for UC prognosis in patients undergoing radical cystectomy. To assess their usefulness in evaluating long-term recurrence and survival, further treatment responses and large-scale additional studies are needed.

Efficacy and Safety of Semirigid Ureteroscopy Combined with Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet Laser Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Calculi: A Single-arm Meta-analysis

Background and objective

Ureteral stones are currently treated with holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser lithotripsy using rigid and flexible ureteroscopes. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of semirigid ureteroscopy combined with Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating proximal ureteral stones in real-world studies.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched systematically to retrieve all relevant studies up to April 2024. A meta-analysis of the retrieved studies was performed using Stata 14.0 software and expressed as rate, mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (CI). The main outcomes of this meta-analysis were stone-free rate (SFR) and perioperative outcomes including operation time, hospital stay, postoperative ureteral stent placement, auxiliary procedures, and intra- or postoperative complications.

Key findings and limitations

A total of 24 studies were included in this study, including 2058 patients with proximal ureteral stones. According to the results of the combined analysis, the SFR of semirigid ureteroscopy combined with Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones was 78% (95% CI [75%, 82%]), operation time was 51.03 min (95% CI [43.5, 58.56]), hospital stay was 1.62 d (95% CI [1.54, 1.70]), auxiliary procedure rate was 20% (95% CI [15%, 25%]), and postoperative complication rate was 16% (95% CI [12%, 22%]).

Conclusions and clinical implications

The results of this study show that semirigid ureteroscopic Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy is a commonly used treatment for proximal ureteral calculi, but its efficacy and safety need to be improved further, and its efficacy is not related to the diameter of the endoscope.

Patient summary

This study showed that Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy with semirigid ureteroscopes is commonly used for treating ureteral stones. However, its efficacy and safety need to be improved further, and future research should focus on these.

A Systematic Review on Comparative Analyses between Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Shock-Wave Lithotripsy for Ureter Stone According to Stone Size

Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the treatment outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) according to the ureteral stone size. Materials and Methods: In this systematic review, relevant articles that compared SWL and URSL for treatment of ureteral stones were identified. Articles were selected from four English databases including Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled Trials (Central), and Google Scholar. A quality assessment was carried out by our researchers independently using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A total of 1325 studies were identified, but after removing duplicates, there remained 733 studies. Of these studies, 439 were excluded, 294 were screened, and 18 met the study eligibility criteria. Results: In randomized control trial (RCT) studies, URSL showed significantly higher SFR than SWL (p < 0.01, OR= 0.40, 95% CI 0.30-0.55, I² = 29%). The same results were shown in sub-group analysis according to the size of the stone (<1 cm: p < 0.01, OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25-0.63; >1 cm: p < 0.01, OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.74, I² = 55%; not specified: p < 0.01, OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.72, I² = 70%). In the non-RCT studies, the effectiveness of the URSL was significantly superior to that of SWL (p < 0.01, OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52, I² = 83%). Retreatment rate was significantly lower in URSL than in SWL regardless of stone size (p < 0.01, OR = 10.22, 95% CI 6.76-15.43, I² = 54%). Conclusions: Meta-analysis results show that SFR was higher than SWL in URSL and that URSL was superior to SWL in retreatment rate. However, more randomized trials are required to identify definitive conclusions.

Comparison of ureteroscopy (URS) complementary treatment after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy failure with primary URS lithotripsy with holmium laser treatment for proximal ureteral stones larger than10mm

Background

To compare ureteroscopy (URS) complementary treatment following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) failure with primary URS lithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones > 10 mm, and try to find out acceptable number of SWL sessions followed by safe URS.

Methods

This was a retrospective study following approval from Medical Ethics Committee of People's Hospital of Chongqing Banan District. Patients (n = 340) who received URS in our hospital for stones > 10 mm from Jan 2015 to June 2020 were divided into two groups according to their previous SWL history. Group 1 consisted of 160 patients that underwent unsuccessful SWL before URS. Group 2 encompassed 180 patients without SWL before URS. Patient’s operative outcomes were compared. A logistic regression and receiver operator characteristics (ROC) were used to identify the acceptable number of SWL sessions prior to URS, regarding the intra-operative complications of URS.

Results

The group 1 required more surgery time (41.38 ± 11.39 min vs. 36.43 ± 13.36 min, p = 0.01). At the same time, more intra-operative (68.1% VS 22.8%, p < 0.05) and post-operative (35% VS 18.0%, p = 0.001) complications occurred in group 1. Need more hospital stay in group 1 (2.7 ± 1.2 days vs 1.6 ± 1.1 days, p < 0.05). More patients in group 1 need further URS (16.3% VS 8.9%, p = 0.029). After second URS, the SFR of URS in two groups was insignificant differences (82.5% VS 88.9%, p > 0.05). The median (25–75%) of SWL sessions before URS was 2 (1–3) in group 1. According to the results of logistic regression analysis, patients suffered more SWL failure have an increased risk of complications during URS (OR = 1.995, 95% CI: 1.636–2.434). ROC showed that the optimal number of SWL session followed by URS were 0.5, with a sensitivity of 67.7% and specificity of 71.5%. Intra-operative complication rates of URS treatment were higher in patients who suffered > 1 SWL failure (72.6% vs 57.4%, p = 0.047).

Conclusion

There was no acceptable number of SWL sessions that could be followed by URS with fewer intra-operative complications. Patients who underwent previous SWL were likely to suffer more intra-operative complications, the average operating time, hospitalization time, and needing further treatment, during URS treatment for proximal ureteral stones larger than 10 mm.

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

AIM

To 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 METHODS

82 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.

RESULTS

Mean 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).

CONCLUSIONS

UWT 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.

Regional Variation in Shock Wave Lithotripsy Utilization Among Medicare Patients with Nephrolithiasis

OBJECTIVE

To characterize shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) utilization and assess for regional variation in the use of this procedure across the United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We examined SWL and URS utilization among Medicare Beneficiaries with a diagnosis of nephrolithiasis for the years 2006, 2009, and 2014. Adjusted utilization rates were calculated per 1000 beneficiaries accounting for age, sex, and race. Utilization rates were examined nationally and by hospital referral region (HRR).

RESULTS

A total of 511,495, 604,493, and 806,652 Medicare beneficiaries had a diagnosis of nephrolithiasis in 2006, 2009, and 2014, respectively. The adjusted rate of SWL per 1000 beneficiaries with nephrolithiasis decreased from 59.4/1000 in 2006 to 52.2/1000 and 45.5/1000 in 2009 and 2014 (13.9% decrease, P < .001). Variation was observed in SWL utilization; up to a 12-fold difference between HRRs (9.2/1000 in Winchester, VA to 105.8/1000 in Lincoln, NE). The adjusted rate of URS per 1000 beneficiaries increased by 10.2% (P < .001) between 2006 and 2014. However, the percent decrease in SWL utilization did not correlate with the percent increase in URS utilization when examined by HRR (P = .66).

CONCLUSION

Variation exists in the utilization of SWL among Medicare beneficiaries (12-fold difference). This variation is likely secondary to a series of supply, urologist, and patient-specific factors. SWL utilization decreased between 2006 and 2014, while URS increased. Stone procedure type is likely highly dependent on where patients receive their urologic care.

Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy

Objectives:

We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and outcome of shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy in the management of the proximal ureteral stones of diameter exceeding 15 mm.

Methods:

During the 2009−2014 study period, 147 patients presenting with the proximal ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter were treated. Both shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy were offered for our patients. A 6/8.9 Fr semirigid ureteroscope was used in conjunction with a holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser. The stone-free rate was assessed at 2 weeks and 3 months post-treatment. All patients were evaluated for stone-free status, operation time, hospital stay, perioperative complications, and auxiliary procedures.

Results:

Of the 147 patients who took part in this study, 66 (45%) had undergone shock wave lithotripsy and 81 (55%) underwent ureteroscopy. At the 3-month follow-up, the overall stone-free rate in the shock wave lithotripsy group was 39/66 (59%) compared to 70/81 (86.4%) in the ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy group. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy achieved a highly significant stone-free rate (p = 0.0002), and the mean operative time, auxiliary procedures, and postoperative complication rates were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion:

In terms of the management of proximal ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter, ureteroscopy achieved a greater stone-free rate and is considered the first-line of management. Shock wave lithotripsy achieved lower stone-free rate, and it could be used in selected cases.

Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) in terms of efficacy, complications, and overall efficiency in the management of proximal ureteral calculi. ESWL and URSL are the 2 most common modalities for treating ureteral stones. Previous studies and meta-analyses suggest that for stones <10 mm, ESWL is safer and of comparable efficacy compared with URSL. However, the choice between one modality over the other for the treatment of stones >10 mm is not as clear.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed in the databases, and resulting reports were screened for relevance. This process yielded 10 articles, which were analyzed in terms of the initial stone-free rate (primary outcome measure) compared between the 2 treatment modalities. Pretreatment rate, operation time, auxiliary procedure rate, and complication rate constituted secondary measures in the analysis.

RESULTS

A statistically higher initial stone-free rate was demonstrated for URSL compared with ESWL (odds ratio [OR] = 0.349; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.183-0.666; P = .001). ESWL showed a statistically higher retreatment rate compared with URSL (OR = 7.192; 95% CI = 4.934-10.482; P <.001). The 2 treatment modalities did not show statistically significant differences in mean operating time (OR = 10.35; 95% CI = -0.29 to 20.99; P = .056), auxiliary procedure rate (OR = 1.043; 95% CI = 0.415-2.616; P = .929), or in the complication rate (OR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.304-1.984; P = .598).

CONCLUSION

For treating large (>10 mm) proximate ureteral stones, URSL tends to be more effective than ESWL, yet without adding significant risk.

Ureteral wall thickness at the impacted ureteral stone site: a critical predictor for success rates after SWL

The aim of the study was to determine the possible predictive value of certain patient- and stone-related factors on the stone-free rates and auxiliary procedures after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with impacted proximal ureteral calculi. A total of 111 patients (86 male, 25 females M/F: 3.44/1) with impacted proximal ureteral stones treated with shock wave lithotripsy were evaluated. Cases were retrieved from a departmental shock wave lithotripsy database. Variables analyzed included BMI of the case, diameter of proximal ureter and renal pelvis, stone size and Hounsfield unit, ureteral wall thickness at the impacted stone site. Stone-free status on follow-up imaging at 3 months was considered a successful outcome. All patients had a single impacted proximal ureteral stone. While the mean age of the cases was 46 ± 13 years (range 26-79 years), mean stone size was 8.95 mm (5.3-15.1 mm). Following shock wave lithotripsy although 87 patients (78.4%) were completely stone-free at 3-month follow-up visit, 24 (21.6%) cases had residual fragments requiring further repeat procedures. Prediction of the final outcome of SWL in patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones is a challenging issue and our data did clearly indicate a highly significant relationship between ureteral wall thickness and the success rates of shock wave lithotripsy particularly in cases requiring additional procedures. Of all the evaluated stone- and patient-related factors, only ureteral wall thickness at the impacted stone site independently predicted shock wave lithotripsy success.

Efficacy of percutaneous nephrostomy tube during ureteroscopy for upper ureter stone management

OBJECTIVE

Preoperative percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) has been commonly performed for patients with urinary stones complicated with pyelonephritis or obstructive uropathy; in fact, a considerable number of patients undergo ureteroscopic removal of stone (URS) in the presence of a PCN. We assessed the effectiveness of PCN during URS in the management of upper ureteral stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 140 patients who underwent URS for upper ureteral stones between January 2008 and December 2011. All URS were performed by a single experienced surgeon. The subjects were divided into two groups depending on the presence of a PCN at the time of the surgery (PCN group: 42 and non-PCN group: 98). The PCN group was subdivided into two groups depending on the performance of external fluid irrigation through PCN during the surgery (irrigation group: 21 and non-irrigation group: 21). To evaluate operative outcomes, we compared operative times, auxiliary procedures required, and success and complication rates.

RESULTS

The PCN group showed significantly better outcomes in terms of the operative time (57.4 minute vs. 68.1 minute) and success rate (92.9% vs. 78.6%) without increasing the complication rate. In the PCN group, the irrigation group showed a shorter operative time compared to the non-irrigation group, although statistical significance was not observed. Other perioperative outcomes, such as the success rate, auxiliary procedures, and complication rates, were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

URS for upper ureteral stones in patients with PCN produced superior surgical outcomes in terms of the success rate, operative time, and auxiliary procedure rate without increasing the complication rate. The presence of PCN with/without external irrigation during URS can be a beneficial factor to produce better outcomes of URS for the management of upper ureteral stones.

Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy

Objective:

Prospective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy with Holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy (URSL) as a primary treatment for impacted stone in the proximal ureter.

Patients and Methods:

A total of 82 patients with a single impacted stone in the proximal ureter were included in the study. Patients were allocated into two groups according to patient preference for either procedure. The first group included 37 patients who were treated by SWL and the second group included 45 patients treated by URSL. The preoperative data and treatment outcomes of both procedures were compared and analyzed.

Results:

There was no difference as regards to patient and stone characters between the two groups. There was significantly higher mean session number and re-treatment rate in the SWL group in comparison to URSL group (1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.02 ± 0.15 session, and 43.2% vs. 2.2%, respectively). At one month, the stone-free rate of the URSL group was statistically significantly higher than that of the SWL group (80% vs. 67.6%, respectively). The stone-free rate at three months was still higher in the URSL group, but without statistically significant difference (80.2% vs. 78.4%, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of complications between the SWL and URSL (24.3% vs. 15.6%, respectively).

Conclusion:

Both procedures can be used effectively and safely as a primary treatment for impacted stone in the proximal ureter; however, the URSL has a significantly higher initial stone-free rate and lower re-treatment rate.

Experience of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mini- percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 163 patients who underwent mini-PCNL between January 2006 and August 2010. Mean age was 48.6 years and mean stone size was 18.4 mm. Hydronephrosis and/or hydroureterosis appeared in all patients. In the prone position, percutaneous access (16-Fr sheath) was established by placement of an access needle into the intended calyx under fluoroscopic guidance or combined with ultrasound guidance for complete obstruction by stones while the contrast agent cannot transit. Pneumatic or ultrasonic probes were used throughout ureterorenoscopy for lithotripsy. The ureteral stents and nephrostomy tube were placed at the end of the procedure. Mean drop in hemoglobin, operative time, success rate, hospital stay, and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Mini-PCNL operations were performed successfully in all patients. Mean operation time was 37 min. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.6 days. All cases were followed up for 6-20 months. No major complications like hemorrhage, perforation or organic injury were noted during the operation or postoperatively. The stone-free rate in all patients was 95.7%. Calculus had no recurrence during the follow-up period. Hydronephrosis and hydroureterosis disappeared or were relieved.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-PCNL is a safe and effective therapy for large impacted proximal ureteral stones.

Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Comparative Clinical Trial Between Transureteral Lithotripsy (TUL) and Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL)

Background

A review of the related medical journals indicates that there is no definite evidence-based option for managing large proximal ureteral stones, although many procedures such as transureteral lithotripsy (TUL), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and open ureterolithotomy are currently used to treat this urological problem.

Objectives

In this study, we tried to determine the most appropriate treatment plan for proximal ureteral stones larger than 12 mm by comparing the two most commonly used procedures.

Patients and Methods

Between February 2005 and April 2011, 62 patients including 40 males and 22 females (mean age 39.5 years, range 19 to 64) with proximal ureteral stones larger than 12 mm (12–26 mm) with a mean size of 17.64 mm were prospectively divided into two groups consisting of 32 patients who underwent TUL (group A) and 30 who underwent SWL (group B). In unsuccessful cases, repeat SWL or TUL was planned. Patients who could not tolerate the lithotomy position, younger than 18 years, had undergone coagulopathy, had concurrent renal and ureteral stones, were pregnant, or had sepsis were excluded from this study.

Results

Stone access was successful in 28 patients and the treatment was efficient in 18 patients (56.25%) in group A. For the patients with successful stone access but unsuccessful TUL, a DJ was inserted and a second ureteroscopic intervention was performed. The second intervention was successful in 7 patients (21.87). SWL was successful in 14 patients (46.66%) in the first attempt and in 7 additional patients in the second intervention (23.33%).

Conclusions

In this study, we showed different success rates for SWL and TUL because of the larger size of the stones. We achieved a success rate of 56.25% in the first attempt in the TUL group, and the overall success rate (after the second TUL) was 78.12%. In comparison, the SWL group had a success rate of 46.66% in the first attempt, and the overall success rate (after the second SWL) was 69.96%.

Urinary tract stone disease: are all problems solved?

During the past four decades there have been dramatic developments in the methods used for active stone removal from the urinary tract, and the need for open surgery has been almost entirely replaced by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous surgery, ureteroscopy and retrograde intrarenal surgery. Residual fragments and the pronounced risk of recurrent stone formation remain important problems for the future development of urolithology and for the optimal low-risk management of this large group of patients. It is emphasized that all aspects of the care of patients with stone disease are the responsibility of the urologist.

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.