Primary ureteroscopy for distal-ureteral stones compared with ureteroscopy after failed extracorporeal lithotripsy

Complementary Ureterorenoscopy after extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in proximal ureteral stones: success and complications

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the effect of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy application on the success and complications of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in proximal ureter stones.

METHODS

The data of 87 patients who did not respond to shock wave lithotripsy and underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy were retrospectively analyzed and classified as group I, and 99 patients who received ureteroscopic lithotripsy as primary treatment were classified as group II. Demographic features, response to treatment, and preoperative and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the two groups in terms of gender, operation times, stone sizes, and ureteroscope diameters. (p>0.05). Infective complications such as postoperative fever, pyelonephritis, and urosepsis were similar in both groups (p=0.142, p=0.291, and p=0.948). Stone migration was observed in 10 (11.5%) and 6 (6.1%) patients in groups I and II, respectively (p=0.291). Impacted stone was seen in 47 (54%) patients in group I and in 15 (15.2%) patients in group II (p<0.0001). Mucosal laceration occurred in 11 (12.6%) and 3 (3%) patients in groups I and II, respectively (p=0.028). Ureteral perforation was detected in 3 (3.4%) patients in group I and 1 (1%) patient in group II, whereas ureteral avulsion was not observed in either group (p=0.524).

CONCLUSIONS

It was concluded that the application of shock wave lithotripsy before ureteroscopic lithotripsy in proximal ureter stones did not affect the success. Although the results are similar in terms of postoperative infection, shock wave lithotripsy application has been found to increase the risk of stone impaction into the mucosa and ureteral laceration.

Determining whether previous SWL for ureteric stones influences the results of ureteroscopy as the second-line treatment: A clinical study

The purpose of the study was to establish whether shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a potential harmful first-line treatment for ureteric stones where ureteroscopy (URS) is necessary as a second-line treatment. Medical records of patients with ureteric stones who underwent either URS as the only therapy applied or SWL followed by URS over two years were retrospectively evaluated. In total, 158 patients were included: 79 patients in Group A (no SWL) and 79 in Group B (prior SWL before URS). There was no difference in major complications, Group A had higher stone-free rates, Group B had higher rates of ureteral edema and similar intraoperative ureteral lesions. In conclusion, the failure of SWL for lumbar or pelvic ureteral lithiasis does not appear to have a negative effect on the rate of intraoperative complications or the success rate of semi-rigid retrograde URS for this category of calculi, with the same safety profile as first-line endourological intervention.

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.

Does previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To determine whether previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy (URS).

Methods

An exhaustive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were conducted to find eligible studies before October 2020. Result variables consisting stone-free rate (SFR), operation time and postoperative modified Clavien grade I-IV complications were pooled utilizing RevMan 5.3.

Results

Seven studies with 2413 individuals were included. Pooled results revealed that the salvage URS after failed SWL was similar to URS performed primarily regarding SFR [odds ratio (OR) =0.84, P=0.15] and operation time [weighted mean difference (WMD) =6.79, P=0.19]. Additionally, no statistically significant differences concerning fever (OR: 1.36; P=0.32), hematuria (OR: 0.81; P=0.75), urinary tract infection (OR: 1.57; P=0.28), renal colic (OR: 1.94; P=0.50), ureteral perforation (OR: 1.44; P=0.46), ureteral avulsion (OR: 1.21; P=0.83), stone migration (OR: 0.92; P=0.86) and sepsis (OR: 0.46; P=0.38) were observed between salvage URS and primary URS group.

Discussion

The success rates and complications of URS were not impacted by previous unsuccessful SWL. The salvage URS is equally effective and safe to primary URS.

Effect of Endoscopic Ureteral Stone Treatment on Kidney Function

INTRODUCTION

Ureteral stones may have an influence on kidney functions due to postrenal obstruction or urinary infections. Urgent decompression or stone removal is necessary and recommended to prevent further complications in case of severe conditions such as anuria and urosepsis. Although it is believed that ureteral stone removal would result in renal function improvement, there are still unclear points on whether ureteroscopy (URS) can provide benefit as expected and has some adverse effects. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the alteration of kidney functions of patients who undergo rigid or flexible URS for ureteral stones and find if there are any influencing factors on kidney function alteration.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

We analyzed 126 patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones between May 2018 and February 2020 prospectively. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated on the day before the surgery, by modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) formula. The calculation was repeated and saved three times during follow-up for the same patient; on the day after the operation, on the postoperative 30th day, and the postoperative 90th day. Then, we evaluated the renal function by comparing eGFR and assessed the predicting factors affecting the kidney function.

RESULTS

Preoperative mean eGFR was 82.28 ± 25.20 mL/min/1.73 m2 for the study group. Mean eGFR was calculated 90.92 ± 22.97 mL/min/1.73 m2 on the first postoperative day, and 94.54 ± 21.95 mL/min/1.73 m2 on the third-month follow-up. The mean change in eGFR was 8.63 ± 16.68 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the early period and 12.26 ± 21.09 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the long-term follow-up period. Fifty-one patients improved on chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage, and 13 deteriorated in three months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Removing the stone and relieving the obstruction by ureteroscopic treatment have an alteration on eGFR. Although eGFR improves in the short-term follow-up, amelioration is evident in long-term follow-up, especially in female patients. The other predictive factors for eGFR improvement after URS are the presence of ureteral obstruction and high preoperative serum creatinine levels.

Urinary Stone Disease: Diagnosis, Medical Therapy, and Surgical Management

Clinical suspicion of urolithiasis should be evaluated with low-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging modality for nonpregnant, adult patients. A period of observation may be appropriate for ureteral stones less than 10 mm, and medical expulsive therapy may be beneficial for facilitating passage of distal ureteral stones. Regardless of stone type, patients should adhere to a low-sodium diet and attempt to achieve a urine volume of more than 2.5 L daily. Individuals with calcium stones should maintain a normal calcium diet, and if stones persist, citrate therapy or thiazide diuretics in the setting of hypercalciuria may be indicated.

Ten-year experience in the management of distal ureteral stones greater than 10 mm in size

AIM

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and semirigid ureteroscopy lithotripsy (URSL) have become standards of treatment for ureteral calculi. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare ESWL vs. URSL in terms of safety and efficacy for treatment of large distal ureteral stones ≥ 1cm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This investigation assessed 637 patients with distal ureteral stones (10 to 15mm in size). 313 in the ESWL group were treated on an outpatient basis using the LithoDiamond machine without anaesthesia. URSL was performed in 324 patients with a 6-8 Fr semirigid ureterorenoscope and YAG laser under spinal anaesthesia. A successful outcome was defined as the patient being stone free 1 month after treatment. For all patients the parameters, including stone-free rate, operation time, complications, were inserted retrospectively in this study after review of medical records and operating room logs.

RESULTS

The stone-free rate after URSL was 77.5% and 45.4% after ESWL treatment (p<0.001). The mean operative time between two groups was 74.7±9.8 for URSL group and 38.3±7.6 for ESWL group. The average number of office visits was 4.2 and 2.6 in patients treated with ESWL and URSL, respectively. Double j stents were inserted in 28.7% of patients. Twenty-one patients needed rehospitalisations for major complications. However, the differences in the overall complication rate were not statistically significant, with a rate of 16.3% for URSL and 14.4% for ESWL (p=0.246).

CONCLUSION

We have shown that URSL has enough safety and efficacy for the treatment of distal ureteral stones ≥ 1cm. URSL is associated with higher stone clearance rate as compared with ESWL.

Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous?

INTRODUCTION

We assessed the effectiveness of ureteroscopy (URS) in proximal ureteral stones performed after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) failure, and determined outcomes in terms of success rate, complications, and operation time.

METHODS

We analyzed data of patients with previous unsuccessful SWL (Group I) and the ones that did not have SWL or URS before (Group II) for proximal ureteral stones between December 2007 and August 2014. Group I included 346 patients who underwent complementary URS and Group II 209 patients who underwent primary URS. Success rates, operation time and complications were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Success rates of complementary and primary URS were 78.9% and 80.9%, respectively. The difference in success rates was not statistically significant between groups (p = 0.57). The complication rates of complementary URS was 12.1%, and 9.5% in primary URS (p = 0.49). No statistically significant differences were noted in terms of gender, age, stone size and side, or lithotripter type between groups. The mean operation time and need for balloon dilatation were higher in complementary URS group compared to the primary URS group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Complementary URS may be used safely after SWL failure in proximal ureteral stones. Its success rate and morbidities are similar to primary URS, except for longer operation time and an increased need for balloon dilatation.

Management of lower ureteric stones: a prospective study

Objective

To discuss the current concepts in lower ureteric stone management.

Material and methods

Between October 2008 and November 2010, 190 patients of both sexes and of different age groups with lower ureteric stones, underwent in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (48 cases), ureterorenoscopy (URS) (120 cases) and open stone surgery (OSS) (22 cases).

The patients’ clinical and radiological findings, as well as stone characteristics, were reviewed and correlated with the stone–free status.

Results

In the ESWL group, the operative time was 43.13 +22.5 min; the average number of sessions/patients was 1.5 sessions; the average number of SW/patients was 4500 SW/patients; the average energy was 16.5 kV; the average stone burden was 7.8/mm; the overall stone–free rate was 75% (36/48); and the average radiation exposure time was 3.5 min.

In the URS group, the operative time was 49.21 +16.09 min; the average stone burden was 10.81mm; the overall stone–free rate was 97.5% (117/120); the average hospital stay was 3.99 days; and the average radiation exposure time was 0.75 min.

In the OSS group, the operative time was 112.38 +37.1 min; the overall stone–free rate was 100% (22/22); and the average hospital stay was 9.74 days.

Conclusion

In the management of patients with lower ureteral stones, URS, SWL and OSS were considered acceptable treatment options.

This recommendation was based on the stone–free results, morbidity and retreatment rates for each therapy.

Does previous failed ESWL have a negative impact of on the outcome of ureterorenoscopy? A matched pair analysis

This study aims to evaluate the outcome of ureteroscopy/ureterorenoscopy (URS) as a salvage procedure for stones resistant to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Between January 2009 and January 2012, 313 patients with upper tract lithiasis were treated by URS. Among them, 87 (27.8 %) had undergone URS after prior ESWL failed to achieve stone clearance (Salvage group). These patients were matched with a group of patients who underwent URS as first-line modality (Primary group). Stone-free rates and adjuvant procedures represented the primary points for comparison. Secondary points for comparison included complications, procedure duration, total laser energy used and length of hospitalization. Matching was possible in all cases. Stone clearance rates were 73.6 and 82.8 % for the Salvage and Primary group, respectively. The difference in stone clearance rates between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.186). A total of 11 patients (12.6 %) in the Primary group and 18 patients (20.7 %) in the Salvage group underwent an adjuvant procedure (p = 0.154). No statistically significant differences were noted in terms of complications, procedure duration and length of hospitalization. In the Primary group, the laser energy used for stone fragmentation was higher (p = 0.043). The rate of ureteric stenting at the end of the procedure was higher for the Salvage group (p = 0.030). Previous failed ESWL is not a predictor for unfavorable outcome of URS. Salvage URS is associated, however, with an increased need for ureteric stenting at the end of the procedure.

Influence of Ureteral Stone Components on the Outcomes of Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy

Purpose

We evaluated the influence of urinary stone components on the outcomes of ureteroscopic removal of stones (URS) by electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) in patients with distal ureteral stones.

Materials and Methods

Patients with a single distal ureteral stone with a stone size of 0.5 to 2.0 cm that was completely removed by use of EHL were included in the study. Operating time was defined as the time interval between ureteroscope insertion and complete removal of ureteral stones. Ureteral stones were classified into 5 categories on the basis of their main component (that accounting for 50% or more of the stone content) as follows: calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM), calcium oxalate dihydrate, carbonate apatite (CAP), uric acid (UA), and struvite (ST).

Results

A total of 193 patients (131 males and 62 females) underwent EHL. The mean operating time was 25.1±8.2 minutes and the mean stone size was 1.15±0.44 cm. Calcium oxalate stones accounted for 64.8% of all ureteral stones, followed by UA (19.7%), CAP (8.3%), and ST (7.2%) stones. The mean operating time was significantly longer in the UA group (28.6±8.3 minutes) than in the COM group (24.0±7.8 minutes, p=0.04). In multivariate analyses, the stone size was negatively associated with the odds ratio (OR) for successful fragmentation. UA as a main component (OR, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.89; p=0.023) was also found to be significantly important as a negative predictive factor of successful fragmentation after adjustment for stone size.

Conclusions

The results of the present study suggest that successful fragmentation by URS with EHL could be associated with the proportion of the UA component.

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy as first-line therapy for patients with single, distal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To compare extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) as first-line treatments for patients with distal ureteric stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 273 patients with single, monolateral, radiopaque, distal ureteric stones of 0.5-1.5 cm were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial. Patients were randomized to undergo ESWL (137) or URS (136). The electromagnetic Modulith SLX lithotripter (Storz Medical, Switzerland) was used for ESWL and a semi-rigid ureteroscope was used for URS. Patients in both groups were compared for overall stone-free rates (SFRs), re-treatment rates, need for auxiliary procedures and complication rates. A subgroup analysis was performed in both groups according to stone size of ≤1 cm and >1 cm.

RESULTS

Patients in the ESWL group achieved a 92.70% overall SFR with a 44.88% re-treatment rate and an 11.02% auxiliary procedure rate. Complications occurred in 15.32% of patients treated with ESWL. Patients in the URS group achieved a 94.85% overall SFR with a re-treatment rate of 7.75% and an auxiliary procedure rate of 18.60%. Complications occurred in 19.11% of patients treated with URS. In the ESWL group, the need for re-treatments and for auxiliary procedures as well as the incidence of complications was significantly higher in patients with stones of >1 cm. In patients with stones of ≤1 cm treated with ESWL the need for re-treatments and for auxiliary procedures as well as the incidence of complications was significantly lower than for those treated with URS.

CONCLUSION

In centres where both techniques are available, ESWL should be the preferred treatment for patients with single distal ureteric stones of ≤1 cm and URS should be reserved for patients with stones of >1 cm.