Optimal treatment for distal ureteral calculi: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy

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.

Low dose lignocaine + butorphanol vs. low dose bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia in day care urological surgeries: a prospective randomized control trial

OBJECTIVE

A local anaesthetic with fast onset, short and reliable duration of anaesthesia may be preferable for day care urological surgeries. Low dose lignocaine is believed to act faster and to have a shorter duration of action than low dose bupivacaine. Use of lignocaine for spinal anesthesia is discouraged now a days because of rare reports of transient neurological symptoms. The purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness and safety of low dose of lignocaine + butorphanol against low dose of bupivacaine for day care urological surgeries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective randomized control trial was conducted between December 2012 to November 2015. After taking ethical committe approval and patient consent, total 990 patients were randomized in two groups. Group A received 0.5 mL of 5% lignocaine (25 mg) + 0.3 mL butorphanol (0.3 mg) and group B received 1 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine (5 mg) for spinal anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia was given at the L3-L4 interspace with the patient in the sitting or lateral position. The criteria for evaluation were time till onset of sensory and motor block, duration of sensory and motor block, time till ambulation, time till fit for discharge and any complications.

RESULTS

Both the groups were comparable in terms of age, male to female ratio, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade and duration surgery. Group A and Group B were statistically different in terms of mean time till onset of sensory block (120±22 sec and 274±36 sec), onset of motor block (228±34 sec and 372±41 sec), duration of sensory block (100±21 min and 230±28 min), duration of motor block (60±15 min and 152±23 min), time till ambulation (138±24 min and 292±48 min), time till fit for discharge (256±35 min and 428±46 min) respectively (<0.0001). Nausea, vomitings, hypotension, bradycarida and pruritis were less in group A compared to group B (<0.01). None of patient in any group had temporary or permanent neurological defecit.

CONCLUSION

Spinal anaesthesia is an effective as well as a safe modality to anaesthetize the patient for day care urological procedures. This study shows lignocaine + butorphanol is preferable over bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia for day care urological procedures. It also favours day care surgery at remote areas with lesser medical facilities. It helps to minimize requirement of medical and paramedical staff, thus further extending scope of day care urological surgeries.

Evaluation of postoperative hydronephrosis following semirigid ureteroscopy: Incidence and predictors

OBJECTIVE

Hydronephrosis developing following ureteroscopy (URS) is an important issue associated with the long-term postoperative renal functions. Studies investigating the role of postoperative imaging revealed conflicting results. In this study, we aimed to determine the incidence and predictors of hydronephrosis following semirigid URS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We evaluated the results of 455 patients who underwent U RS a nd postoperative imaging with non-contrast computed tomography (CT). Primary endpoints of the study were to determine the frequency of development of hydronephrosis and factors associated with the development of hydronephrosis. Logistic regression analysis was used to define factors effecting on the development of hydronephrosis.

RESULTS

Postoperative non-contrast CT revealed hydronephrosis in 81 (17.8%) patients. Stone-free status was achieved in 415 (91.2%) patients. Univariate analysis revealed history of ipsilateral URS (p=0.001), duration of operation (p=0.022), presence of multiple stones (p=0.001), and occurrence of a renal colic episode postoperatively (p=0.013) as the parameters associated with increased risk of postoperative hydronephrosis. In the multivariate analysis, history of ipsilateral URS (OR: 2.724, p=0.017) and presence of multiple stones (OR: 2.116, p=0.032) were found to be the independent prognostic markers of developing postoperative hydronephrosis.

CONCLUSION

Ipsilateral hydronephrosis following URS develops in a significant number of patients. In patients with history of ipsilateral hydronephrosis and multiple stones, risk of development of postoperative hydronephrosis is higher, therefore physicians should be keep these parameters in mind in the decision making process of selective imaging postoperatively.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Modalities for Ureteral Stones

Additional intervention and medical treatment of complications may follow the primary treatment of a ureteral stone. We investigated the cost of the treatment of ureteral stone(s) within 45 days after initial intervention by means of retrospective analysis of the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. All patients of ages ≥20 years diagnosed with ureteral stone(s)( International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification/ICD-9-CM: 592.1) from January 2001 to December 2011 were enrolled. We included a comorbidity code only if the diagnosis appeared in at least 2 separate claims in a patient’s record. Treatment modalities (code) included extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL; 98.51), ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL; 56.31), percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNL; 55.04), (open) ureterolithotomy (56.20), and laparoscopy (ie, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; 54.21). There were 28 513 patients with ureteral stones (13 848 men and 14 665 women) in the randomized sample of 1 million patients. The mean cost was 526.4 ± 724.1 United States Dollar (USD). The costs of treatment were significantly increased in patients with comorbidities. The costs of treatment among each primary treatment modalities were 1212.2 ± 627.3, 1146.7 ± 816.8, 2507.4 ± 1333.5, 1533.3 ± 1137.1, 2566.4 ± 2594.3, and 209.8 ± 473.2 USD in the SWL, URSL, PNL, (open) ureterolithotomy, laparoscopy (laparoscopic ureterolithotomy), and conservative treatment group, respectively. In conclusion, URSL was more cost-effective than SWL and PNL as a primary treatment modality for ureteral stone(s) when the possible additional costs within 45 days after the initial operation were included in the calculation.

Economic outcomes of treatment for ureteral and renal stones: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ureteral/renal stone treatment by comparing ureteroscopy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search to identify studies of treatment for adults with ureteral and renal stones that were published between 1995 and 2010. For inclusion in analysis studies had to provide the stone-free rate and the cost of at least 2 therapies.

RESULTS

Ten studies were identified, including 8 with an observational design and 2 that synthesized data using decision modeling techniques. Five of 6 studies, including 1 of 2 from the United States, compared ureteroscopy vs shock wave lithotripsy for proximal stones and showed a higher stone-free rate and lower cost for ureteroscopy. Four of the 5 studies, including the only American study, compared ureteroscopy vs shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones and also showed such an economically dominant result. Studies of shock wave lithotripsy vs percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopy vs percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones demonstrated higher cost and a higher stone-free rate for percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the great heterogeneity and limited quality of available cost-effectiveness evaluations most studies demonstrated that ureteroscopy was more favorable than shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones in stone-free rate and cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteral calculi in eastern China

INTRODUCTION

It was the aim of this study to compare the efficiency and safety between shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy (URL) methods for ureteral calculi while also determining which option is more cost-effective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

During January 2008 to September 2009, a prospective randomized study was conducted to compare both modalities for the management of solitary radiopaque ureteral stones. Patient and stone characteristics, treatment outcome and charges were documented. Both options were compared using univariate statistical tests to identify the efficiency quotient and cost-effectiveness for ureteral calculi according to the stone location.

RESULTS

A total of 257 patients were in the SWL group, while 269 were in the URL group. The efficiency quotients for SWL and URL were 0.81 and 0.88, respectively. The initial stone-free rate of URL for lower ureteral calculi was higher (p = 0.002), while the complication rate of SWL for upper ureteral calculi was lower (p = 0.027). The SWL group required lower hospitalization charges (USD 440 vs. 1,221; p < 0.001), lower total charges (USD 454 vs. 1,284; p < 0.001) and a shorter period of hospitalization (5.4 vs. 6.6 days; p < 0.001) compared with the URL group for all ureteral locations. For mid and lower ureteral calculi, the postoperative office visits of the URL group were fewer (1.03 vs. 1.1 times; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary in situ SWL for upper and middle ureteral calculi showed lower complication rates compared to URL and was more cost-effective in Eastern China. However, primary URL was a better option for treating lower ureteral stones with a higher stone-free rate but was more expensive.

SWL is More Cost-Effective than Ureteroscopy and Holmium:YAG Laser Lithotripsy for Ureteric Stones: A Comparative Analysis for a Tertiary Referral Centre

Background:

To identify the most cost-effective treatment for ureteric stones ≤15 mm in our department, by using an economic model to compare the total cost of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) versus ureteroscopy with Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy (URSL).

Patients and methods:

Data for patients treated with the same lithotriptor were retrospectively analyzed. The financial department provided data about the cost of procedures. This model accepted a 100% stone-free rate for URSL in outpatients, and a 50% rate of insertion of a ureteric stent. The cost for each procedure to render a patient stone-free was estimated by the following equations: costSWL = cost(initial SWL session) + [cost(SWL session) × retreatment rate] + [cost(URSL) × SWL failure rate] + [cost(stent insertion and removal) × rate] + [cost(KUB film) × 4] costURSL = cost(URSL) + [cost(stent removal) × 50%] + [cost(KUB film) × 2]

Results:

Records of 228 patients with previously untreated solitary radiopaque ureteric stones ≤15 mm were reviewed. The total cost for SWL (cSWL) was £1491/patient, while the total cost for URSL (cURSL) was £2195/patient. The difference was highest in the upper ureter (over £1000), and lowest in the distal part (URSL about 40% more expensive). For lower ureteric stones >10 mm, SWL was over £500 more expensive than URSL.

Conclusion:

Using data from the department to calculate cost-effectiveness for ureteric stones ≤15 mm a difference in favour of SWL versus URSL was found. Uniform guidelines incorporating cost are impossible considering differences between countries; each centre should probably assess their data individually.

Does stone dimension affect the effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether stone dimension is a restrictive factor for ureterorenoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A group of 416 patients who had undergone ureterorenoscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS-PL) for lower ureteral stones between January 1999 and June 2006 in our clinic had been evaluated retrospectively. Two hundred and seventy (270, 64.9%) patients were men and 146 (35.1%) were women. The mean age of the patients was 36.61 (+/- 12.43) years. Patients were grouped according to stone dimension; 193 patients with stones smaller than 1 cm being group 1 and 223 patients with stones > or = 1 cm in dimension being group 2. Stone-free rate, operative time and rate of complications of the groups were compared. Pearson's correlation test, chi2 test, Fischer's exact test and Student's t-test were used for the statistical analysis. The p value was accepted as being meaningful if p < 0.05.

RESULTS

For group 1, the mean operative time was 39.19 (+/- 18.33) min. Proximal stone migration in five and false passage formation in three patients was observed. Three patients were stone-free after a second session of URS-PL. The cumulative stone-free rate was 97.4% (188/193). For group 2, the mean operative time was 48.5 (+/- 11.31) min. About 208 (93.27%) patients were stone-free after the first session and an additional eight patients became stone-free after the second session of URS-PL. False passage, ureteral perforation, ureteral avulsion and stricture were observed in four, six, one and one patients, respectively. No proximal stone migration was observed. The cumulative stone-free rate was 96.86% (216/223).

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of ureterorenoscopy (URS) in the treatment of distal ureteral stones was independent of stone dimension. However, the operative time was longer and the rate of perforation was higher in stones with a diameter > or = 1 cm. On the other hand, the migration rate was higher in stones < 1 cm in diameter. Generally speaking, there was no meaningful effect of stone dimension on complication rates.

Outpatient basis extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureter stones: efficacy of the third generation lithotripter as the first line treatment

AIM

We assessed the efficacy of a third generation extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) machine for ureter stones using the Dornier Lithotriptor Compact Delta.

METHODS

A total of 471 consecutive ureter stones were treated with ESWL using the Dornier Lithotriptor Compact Delta from December 2001 on an outpatient basis. Four hundred and one cases were followed up at least once after the procedure and were included in this study. All of the cases, except one patient who was three years old, were treated without anesthesia, and the procedure was principally performed on outpatient basis.

RESULTS

The overall stone free rate was 94.5% and the mean number of treatment sessions was 1.23. The stone free rates were compared considering various clinical factors and significant differences were observed in the stone length, the stone location and the sex in univariate analysis. However, only the stone length maintained a statistically significant impact in multivariate analysis and the stone free rates were 91.2% and 98.0% respectively in larger stones (length 10mm) and smaller stones (length < 10mm) (p = 0.004). In mid-distal stones, the stone free rate was higher than that of proximal stones (97.5% vs 92.6%, p = 0.04) and not affected by stone length.

CONCLUSIONS

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy performed by the third generation machine achieved an excellent stone free rate with a relatively small number of treatment sessions. This procedure is strongly recommended as the first line therapy for all ureter stones including mid-distal ones.

How efficient is extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with modern lithotripters for removal of ureteral stones?

PURPOSE

To analyze results of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for treatment of ureteral stones with two modern lithotripters.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A consecutive series of 598 patients with ureteral stones was treated with the Modulith SLX Classic and Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripters. The mean (SD) age of the patients was 54 (17) years, and the mean (SD) stone surface area was 42 (34) mm2. Results were available for 580 patients.

RESULTS

Stone-free ureters were recorded in 563 (97.1%) patients. Stone-free rates were 96.1%, 97.8%, and 97.9%, for the proximal, middle, and distal ureter, respectively. The average number of SWL sessions needed was 1.31. For the proximal, middle, and distal ureter, one SWL session was sufficient in 73.1%, 66.7%, and 83.2% of patients, respectively. Assisting auxiliary procedures were used in 102 patients (18%). The total mean (SD) treatment time was 48 (26) minutes and the mean (SD) number of shockwaves was 3266 (2258). SWL for stones located in the proximal, middle, and distal ureter was carried out in the prone position in 38%, 88%, and 9%, respectively. For 90 patients primarily treated with a large focus, the re-treatment rate was the same as for patients treated with a standard focus. A stone treatment index used to assess the efforts, results, and complications was similar for the two lithotripters and for all stone locations. Thus both lithotripters had similar efficacy.

CONCLUSION

With consistent use of SWL, a stone-free rate of more than 97% can be attained, with a reasonable re-treatment rate and only modest use of assisting auxiliary procedures.

Operative Failure during Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy: Factors Affecting Successful Outcome

AIM

We aimed to evaluate the predictive factors that would in turn indicate stone migration and the effects of these factors on the ultimate success of the intervention.

METHOD

Patients were divided into two groups with respect to the migration of the stone treated. Group I: patients demonstrating stone migration during manipulation; group II: no migration of the stones noted. In the second phase of the study, the results of ureteroscopic management in 433 patients were evaluated with respect to the success rates obtained. Parameters such as stone size, stone burden, experience of the surgeon, length of the ureter proximal to the stone treated, and lastly transverse diameter of the ureter were noted in all patients as possible risk factors for stone migration.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis of ureteroscopic success in all patients revealed that there was a meaningful correlation with respect to the length of the proximal ureteral portion (p < 0.0001) and surgeon's experience (p = 0.004). p value for the correlation between stone burden and operative success was 0.056. There was no significant correlation between stone size (p = 0.51), ureter diameter (p = 0.78), and operative success.

CONCLUSION

Stones that are close to the renal pelvis and treated by inexperienced physicians are the ones most likely to migrate to the renal pelvis during manipulation with pneumatic lithotripsy.

The evolution of ureteroscopy: a modern single-institution series

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate a modern ureteroscopy series, including the use of new technological advances, operative procedures, and potential complications, at a single institution and to compare our current experience with our prior published series and the current literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 1000 consecutive ureteroscopies performed in 961 patients from December 1999 to February 2003 at our institution.

RESULTS

Semirigid and flexible ureteroscopes were used in 60.3% and 37.0% of the cases, respectively. In 2.6% of cases, a combination of both rigid and flexible ureteroscopes was required. The most common indications for ureteroscopy were as follows: stone, 57.9%; diagnostic, 20.6%; and urothelial carcinoma, 12.6%. Of the stones treated, 31.8% were proximal or middle and 59.1% distal. The overall, proximal, and distal stone-free rates were 91.7%, 87.3%, and 94.2%, respectively. Average operative time was 81 minutes (range, 5-280 minutes). Average follow-up was 2.36 months (range, 1-24 months). The overall complication rate was 1.9% (18/961), including a 0.2% (2/961) incidence of ureteral strictures.

CONCLUSION

Current practice trends have shifted to an increased use of flexible ureteroscopes and more frequent ureteroscopic treatment of proximal calculi. Our single treatment stone-free rates are competitive with quoted shock wave lithotripsy success. In addition, there has been a decrease in ureteroscopic-associated complications in our series, with no ureteral avulsions. The improvements in treatment success and decrease in complications may be secondary to advances in ureteroscopic technology.

Treatment of impacted lower third ureteral stones with the use of the ureteral access sheath

We present our experience with the use of the ureteral access sheath for the management of small impacted lower third ureteral stones, in comparison with more standard techniques. Ninety-eight consecutive patients, aged 18-73 years (mean 48.5), with small (diameter < or = 10 mm) impacted lower third ureteral stones (< 5 mm in 56, and 5-10 mm in 42 patients) were randomly managed with either a 12/14F coaxial ureteral dilator/sheath and a 7.5F flexible ureteroscope (group A; 48 patients), or with balloon dilatation and the 7.5F flexible ureteroscope (group B; 50 patients). In both groups, stones were grasped and extracted with a basket, and when necessary they were disintegrated with a 1.9F electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) probe. Postoperatively, excretory urography was performed at 1 month and patients were followed-up for 1 year. The mean operative time was 45.5 min in group A, and 58.5 min in group B (P<0.05). EHL was performed in 16 (33.3%) patients of group A, and in 12 (24%) patients of group B. In group B, balloon dilatation was performed in 28 (56%) patients. Ureteral perforation was revealed in 4 (8%) patients of group B. The follow-up imaging tests showed stone-free status in 46 (95.8%) patients of group A and in all (100%) patients of group B. No long-term complications were recorded. Endoscopic management of small impacted lower third ureteral stones with the ureteral access sheath is a quicker and safer procedure, in comparison with the more standard approach, bearing comparable efficacy.

Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective study

We performed a prospective, non-randomised study to determine the appropriate first-line treatment modality for distal ureteral stones. Between 2003 and 2004, a total of 124 patients with distal ureteral calculi were entered into the study (mean age 48 years, 35 women and 99 men). Sixty-two patients were treated with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and 62 patients with ureteroscopy (URS). The average stone size was 6.9 mm (3-33 mm) for SWL and 7.2 mm (3-30 mm) for URS. The treatment decision depended on the patients' preference and clinical parameters (i.e. contraindications for anaesthesia). URS was performed under general anaesthesia, using semirigid 8 Fr instruments. SWL was performed under analgo-sedation using a Modulith SLX. Of patients treated with SWL, 84% had a treatment success within 7 days, 98% after URS. These results show a significant success (P=0.005) in favour of URS. The average in-patient stay after SWL was 3 days and for URS 4 days (not significant). The results show a high efficacy and a low complication rate for both modalities. The attained stone-free rate shows a significant advantage for primary URS.

Assessment of Novel Ureteral Occlusion Device and Comparison with Stone Cone in Prevention of Stone Fragment Migration during Lithotripsy

PURPOSE

To present the initial ex-vivo results of a new ureteral-occlusion device (Cook Urological, Spencer, IN) for preventing the retrograde migration of particles during ureteroscopy and its comparison with the Stone Cone (Microvasive-Boston Scientific Corp., Spencer, IN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed an ex-vivo model using a porcine kidney with an intact ureter. Standardized plastic beads were placed in the proximal ureter. Each device was deployed proximal to the beads during ureteroscopy, and the number of beads impeded by each device was recorded.

RESULTS

The new device was successful at preventing retrograde migration of beads > or = 1.5 mm. Furthermore, 1.0-mm beads were impeded by the center of the device, although they passed through the periphery. The Stone Cone blocked the retrograde migration of beads > or = 2.5 mm.

CONCLUSION

The new occlusion device was efficacious in an ex-vivo model. It appears to prevent the migration of smaller particles than are blocked by the Stone Cone.

Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser

OBJECTIVES

To compare the success rates, cost effectiveness, and efficiency of ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for proximal ureteral stones.

METHODS

In a retrospective manner, 220 patients who underwent treatment for proximal ureteral stones were included in the study. The patient records, radiographs, and billing statements of all patients treated for upper ureteral stones between January 1997 and June 2001 at Scott and White Memorial Hospital were reviewed. The patients were placed into two treatment groups according to the method of their stone's initial treatment. The stones were categorized as less than 1 cm and 1 cm or greater.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients were in the ESWL group, 73 of whom had stones less than 1 cm, and 109 patients in the URS group, 81 of whom had stones less than 1 cm. In the URS group, 91% were successfully treated with one treatment intervention, and 55% of the ESWL group were successfully treated with their initial intervention (P <0.0001). Of the patients with URS failure, all but one was treated successfully with a second URS. Of the patients with ESWL failure, 52% were treated successfully by subsequent URS. The remaining patients with ESWL failure were treated with repeat ESWL, with a 62% success rate. The efficiency quotient for stones less than 1 cm for URS and ESWL was 0.79 and 0.51, respectively. For stones 1 cm or greater, URS had an efficiency quotient of 0.72 and ESWL of 0.46. The URS group required fewer days to be stone free (8 versus 25.5 days, P <0.0001). No statistically significant difference was found in the overall complication rates (P = 0.43). URS had significantly lower charges for the initial procedure (7575 dollars versus 9507 dollars, P <0.0001). The total charges were also lower for URS (9378 dollars versus 15,583, dollars P <0.0001). Complications were similar in the two groups. The URS group had two ureteral strictures.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that URS is more efficient and cost-effective for stones up to and larger than 1 cm with similar complication rates compared with ESWL.

Complications of ureteroscopy

Ureteroscopy has undergone a dramatic evolution over the last two decades. Although ureteroscopic injury is the most common cause of ureteral trauma because of the large number of ureteroscopic procedures performed, improvements in instrumentation and technique have resulted in a reduced incidence of serious complications. Despite significant technologic advances, however, surgical misadventures still occur, some of which have lasting consequences. Careful attention to instrument selection and surgical technique are critical to reduce untoward events related to ureteroscopy. As such, adverse sequelae associated with ureteroscopy should be related to the underlying pathology itself rather than to the treatment.

Routine ureteral dilatation is not necessary for ureteroscopy

PURPOSE

To present our experience in ureteroscopic lithotripsy and stone extraction without ureteral dilatation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 134 consecutive patients (80 male and 54 female), with a mean age of 36.4 (18-65) years underwent ureteroscopic stone removal. The stones were located in the lower, middle, and upper parts of the ureter in 92, 18 and 24 patients and the mean stone diameters were 9.2 (6-15) mm, 10.5 (8-15) mm and 8.8 (8-10) mm, respectively. A semirigid ureteroscope 8 F in size was used without any ureteral dilatation. The stones were fragmented by a pneumatic lithotripter in the ureter and the fragments were removed by a basket catheter or stone forceps. All patients were re-evaluated with a plain film on postoperative first day and with intravenous urography (IVU) at 3 months. Residual fragments bigger than 3 mm were accepted as treatment failure.

RESULTS

The mean operation time was 44 (20-120) minutes. After the operation, the stone-free rate was 89/92 (97%) for lower, 15/18 (83%) middle and 18/24 (75%) upper ureteral stones, respectively. Double J catheter replacement was needed in 13 patients due to impacted stone and/or failed procedure. Ureteral perforation did not occur in any patient. Patients were discharched from hospital within 6-24 hours. No ureteral stricture was encountered during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Our experience suggests that ureteroscopic interventions could be easily performed for all parts of ureter without previous dilatation of the ureter.

Treatment of lower ureteral stones using the Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Lithotripsy using new-generation machines requires minimal anesthesia and so can easily be given in an outpatient setting. We report our experience with the Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter in the primary management of lower ureteral stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified 128 patients treated with SWL for lower-ureteral stones between April 1999 and August 2001. Complete follow-up was available for 112 patients. Their ages ranged from 19 to 78 years, with women accounting for 23%. Only three patients had a ureteral stent in situ. All patients were routinely followed up at 2 weeks with a plain film. The timing of further follow-up depended on the initial response to treatment.

RESULTS

Fragmentation occurred in 83 of 112 stones (74%): 93% of the successful cases and 43% of the unsuccessful ones. A total of 59 patients (53%) were stone free after one treatment. This figure increased to 73 (65%) after a second treatment. The mean size of the successfully treated stones was less than that of the failed stones (7.6 v 8.7 mm), although the difference did not reach statistical significance. Stone-free rates decreased as stone size increased, being 71% for the 28 stones < or =5 mm in diameter, 65% for the 52 stones 6 to 9 mm, 64% for the 25 stones 10 to 14 mm, and 42% for the 7 stones > or =15 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

When SWL can be delivered promptly in an outpatient setting, it remains a useful first-line treatment for lower ureteral stones. Although it is not as effective as ureteroscopy, its use can avert the need for more invasive treatment in half to two thirds of patients. It should be limited to stones <15 mm.