Comparison of retrograde ureterorenoscopy (URS) and percutaneous anterograde ureteroscopy for removal of impacted upper ureteral stones >10mm in the elderly population

A Comparative Analysis between Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Treatment of >15 mm Non-Obstructing Proximal Ureteral Stones

BACKGROUND

The proper surgical modality for large non-obstructing proximal ureteral stones is disputed. We compare effectiveness and safety of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURL) and tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (TPNL) in treatment of upper ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of patients who performed FURL or TPNL for upper ureteral stones between June 2016 and November 2018. Comparative analysis was conducted regarding demographic parameters, stone free rate, postoperative pain and complications.

RESULTS

This study included 58 patients treated with FURL and 60 patients treated with TPNL owing to upper ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm. Stone size was similar in the FURL and TPNL groups (17.6 ± 2.6 vs. 18.0 ± 2.1 mm, p = 0.194). The overall 3-month stone clearance rate was 95.8% for FURL versus 96.0% for TPNL (p = 0.575). There was no difference between the FURL and TPNL groups for hospital stay (p = 0.280) and postoperative complications. On the other hand, patients treated with FURL had longer operative time (p = 0.012) and less postoperative pain (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Both surgical techniques were considered feasible and effective surgical procedures in the treatment of large upper ureteral stones.

Ureteroscopy in the elderly: safety and functional results

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ureteroscopy (URS) for urinary stones treatment in patients ≥ 80 years of age.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2021, 96 patients ≥ 80 years underwent URS for urinary stone disease. Patients' demographics and surgical outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

The median length of follow-up was 25 months. Median age was 84 years. Half of the patients (53%) were ASA score 3 and 16% ASA 4. Mean stone diameter (SD) was 10.6 mm, and mean procedure time was 78 min. Eighty-three patients underwent follow-up imaging (ultrasonography or computed tomography) with a median time of 31 days. Stone-free rate was 73.9%. Twenty patients (20.7%) experienced a minor complication [Clavien-Dindo (CD) I-II] whereas five (5.7%) experienced a major complication (CD III-V). SD ≥ 10 mm predicted CD III-V complications (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55, p = 0.03). Urinary drainage prior the procedure with double J stent, nephroureteral stent or percutaneous nephrostomy tube had no impact on patients' SFR [74.6% in the drained group versus 64.0% in the undrained group (p = 0.44)] nor on major complications (OR 4.68, 95% CI 0.25-87.77, p = 0.30).

CONCLUSION

In elderly patients, URS for treatment of renal and ureteral stones is a relatively efficient and safe procedure. The risk of major complications is low, and the only associated risk factor found was SD ≥ 10 mm. Urinary drainage prior the procedure did not affect patients' outcomes.