Lasertripsy of upper urinary tract calculi after unsuccessful extracorporeal lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: comparison with primary lasertripsy

Update on contact lithotripsy

Despite the development of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, endoscopic stone removal, with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, is still an effective minimally invasive alternative for special indications. There is no defined all-purpose lithotripsy procedure for contact lithotripsy. The choice of the lithotripsy procedure for endoscopic stone disintegration depends on a number of different factors, the main one being stone localization. Small calibre, flexible probes (electrohydraulic, pneumatic, laser) are especially appropriate for ureterorenoscopy, but the speed of stone disintegration is a limiting factor. In contrast, large calibre rigid probes (ultrasound) are clearly more effective, but are unsuitable in size for flexible ureterorenoscopy. This indicates that the type and size of the endoscope decisively influences the choice of devices for endoscopic stone disintegration. Additional inhibiting factors are the flexibility or the rigidity of the instrument and the diameter of the working channel. It must be noted that total costs are not only calculated on the purchase of the equipment, but must also cover disposable materials.

Intracorporeal lithotripsy. Update on technology

The number and variety of devices currently available for endoscopic lithotripsy reflect the reality that no single device is ideal in all situations. Although the search for the universal lithotriptor continues, the urologist must consider several factors if faced with the decision of which device to purchase. Perhaps foremost among these factors is the clinical situation with which one commonly deals. For example, although the smaller, flexible probes such as EHL or laser demonstrate considerable utility if used ureteroscopically, the larger stone burden associated with today's percutaneous nephrolithotripsy population often is treated more efficiently with one of the mechanical devices employing a larger, rigid probe, such as ultrasound or the Lithoclast. Similarly, the type and size of endoscopic equipment at one's disposal have a significant impact on which device to purchase or use. There are physical constraints affecting which device may or may not be used, rigid versus flexible endoscope, working channel caliber, and offset versus end-on-port. The skill and experience of the surgeon is also a factor of obvious importance, particularly if one is using a modality with a relatively narrow margin of safety such as EHL. Likewise, the training and experience of nursing personnel is a factor, especially regarding the use of lasers, which require certified personnel who are well versed in laser safety. Finally, in today's environment one must carefully evaluate cost in terms of not only initial capital outlay but also ongoing charges for disposable and maintenance items. Thus, the decision of which device to purchase is complex and requires careful evaluation of all of the previously noted variables. Likewise, if one is fortunate enough to have more than one device available, the decision of which lithotriptor to employ requires a similar decision based on sound surgical judgment.

Endoscopic management of urolithiasis in the morbidly obese patient

A retrospective review of 48 consecutive morbidly obese patients with urolithiasis who were treated successfully by endoscopic modalities over 3.5 years was performed. Of the 73 endoscopic procedures, 48 were ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (UL), 4 were ureteroscopic basket extraction, and 21 were percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL). The patients' weight ranged from 205 to 385 lbs. (average 286 lbs.). Their abdominal girth ranged from 53 to 65 inches (average 59 inches). Twenty-six patients had one procedure, eight patients had bilateral procedures, eleven patients had two procedures, and three patients had three procedures with utilization of either multiple ureteroscopic treatments or the combination of percutaneous and ureteroscopic techniques. The stone-free rate after one procedure was 77.8% for UL and 60% for PCNL. The stone-free rate after planned repeat procedures was 97% for UL/UL and 89% for PCNL/UL. There were two minor complications. Forty-eight procedures were performed on an outpatient basis, and the remaining 25 procedures necessitated hospital admission (average 3.6 days). Morbidly obese patients with urolithiasis who are unable to have SWL because of their body weight and abdominal girth can be treated successfully with UL, ureteroscopic basket extraction, and PCNL with efficacy comparable to that in patients of normal weight and with minimal morbidity. Many renal calculi were treated with UL alone with a high success rate.

Electrohydraulic lithotripsy of upper ureteral calculi with semirigid ureteroscope

Forty-three patients with single ureteral calculi located above the pelvic brim were treated by electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) using a semirigid mini-ureteroscope. Of the 43 calculi, 36 (84%) were fragmented in one procedure. Six calculi (14%) were pushed back to the renal pelvis and treated successfully by complementary extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). The total success rate of ureteroscopic manipulation thus was 98%. The operation time (mean 26.4 minutes) and postoperative hospital stay (mean 2.53 days) were relatively short. Complications were limited to four (9%) minor perforations of the ureter managed by internal stenting. Among these patients with complications, there were no significant ureteral strictures noted on excretory urography or ureteroscopic examination 1 to 3 months after ureterolithotripsy. The costs of ureteroscopy with EHL are lower than that of SWL or ureteroscopic lasertripsy. The total fees for ureteroscopy with EHL are about two thirds those for SWL in Taiwan. Despite the longer learning curve required for ureteroscopy, ureteroscopy associated with EHL is a cost-effective alternative for the treatment of upper ureteral calculi, especially when SWL is not readily available.

Outpatient fragmentation of ureteral calculi with mini-ureteroscopes and laser lithotripsy

Laser lithotripsy with mini-ureteroscopes is a minimally invasive method to fragment ureteral calculi. This study reviewed the efficacy and morbidity of outpatient laser lithotripsy for the treatment of ureteral calculi. The 248 patients were initially treated by outpatient ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy with the Candela pulsed-dye laser over a period of 3 1/2 years. Thirty-six patients had prior unsuccessful fragmentation of ureteral calculi by SWL. Twenty-eight patients had undergone unsuccessful ureteroscopy with attempted basket extraction or attempted fragmentation with methods other than laser. Calculi were located in the upper ureter in 31% and in lower ureter in 69% of these patients. The 1-month stone-free rate was 92% for upper ureteral calculi and 96% for lower ureteral calculi, with an overall success rate of 94.7%. Ninety per cent of the patients were discharged the same day and 96% within 23 hours. Hospital admission was needed in only 4% of patients. Parenteral analgesia was required in 18% of patients, and major complications occurred in 0.8%. The combination of mini-ureteroscopes and laser lithotripsy is an effective method for fragmentation of ureteral calculi in outpatients with low morbidity and few complications.