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.

Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and cost between ultrasound-guided shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) with an early second session protocol and ureteroscopy (URS) in patients with proximal ureteral stones using the propensity score matching (PSM) method based on a large prospective study. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or URS) for proximal ureteral stones were enrolled. The stone-free rate (SFR), complications, and cost were recorded. PSM analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1230 patients were included, of whom 81.1% (998) were treated with SWL and 18.9% (232) were treated with URS. After PSM, the SWL group had an equivalent SFR at one month (88.7 vs. 83.6%, P = 0.114) compared with the URS group. Complications were rare and comparable between the two groups, while the incidence of ureteral injuries was higher in the URS group compared with the SWL group (1.4 vs. 0%, P = 0.011). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs. 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (2000 vs. 25,053, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the URS group. CONCLUSION: This prospective PSM cohort demonstrated that ultrasound-guided SWL with an early second session protocol had equivalent effectiveness but better safety and lower cost compared with URS in the treatment of patients with proximal ureteral stones, whether the stones were radiopaque or radiolucent. These results will facilitate treatment decisions for proximal ureteral stones.

Comparison of antegrade and retrograde ureterolithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antegrade percutaneous ureterolithotripsy (URSL) could be a treatment option for large and/or impacted proximal ureteral stones, which are difficult to treat. To review the current approach and treatment outcomes and to compare the efficacy of retrograde and antegrade URSL for large proximal ureteral stones, we evaluated the unique perspectives of both surgical modalities. METHODS: This systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed in July 2020. Articles on human studies and treatment of ureteral stones with URSL were extracted from the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the Japan Medical Abstracts Society databases without any language restrictions. The risks of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) were assessed using the Cochrane risk of tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies- of Interventions tool, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies, including seven RCTs and three non-RCTs, were selected for the analysis; 433 and 420 cases underwent retrograde and antegrade URSL, respectively. The stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly higher in antegrade URSL than in retrograde URSL (SFR ratio: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.12-1.22; P<0.001), while the hospital stay was significantly longer in antegrade URSL than in retrograde URSL (standardized mean difference: 2.56, 95% CI: 0.67-4.46; P=0.008). There were no significant differences in the operation time and the overall complication rate between the two approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the heterogeneity of data and bias limitations, this latest evidence reflects real practice data, which may be useful for decision making.

Optimal management of large proximal ureteral stones (>10 mm): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an evidence base to guide clinicians treating adults with large proximal ureteral stones (LPUS) greater than 10 mm. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) concerning different LPUS management techniques including laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) up until March 2020. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement when searching and determining inclusion. All included articles were quality assessed and the data analyses were conducted with Review Manager (5.3). RESULTS: 12 RCTs involving 1416 patients met our eligibility criteria and were analyzed. Of these participants, 44.6% (n = 632) underwent URL, 25.5% (n = 361) PCNL, and 29.9% (n = 423) LU. Pooled analysis revealed that URL had a significantly lower stone-free rate (SFR) compared to PCNL and LU (both with p < 0.05). URL had a significantly higher ureteral injury rate compared to LU (Relative risk (RR) = 5.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 18.22, p = 0.009) and PCNL (RR = 4.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 16.34, p = 0.04). However, no significant differences were found between PCNL and LU in terms of SFR or overall complications, both with p > 0.05. URL initially costs less than PCNL (Weighted mean difference (WMD) -597.35US$, 95% CI -823.10 to -371.60, p < 0.00001), but being less effective creates greater demand for repeat or ancillary treatments compared to LU (RR 15.65, 95% CI 2.11-116.12, p = 0.007) and PCNL (RR 8.86; 95% CI 3.19-24.60; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Both PCNL and LU appear more effective and safer than URL for LPUS; although, LU has higher risk of urine leakage and is more likely incur trauma which requires additional support. However, caution must be taken because this recommendation is based upon a very limited number of clinical studies, and even fewer comparing flexible ureteroscopic technologies. Further prospective real-world studies or RCTs comparing flexible URL, LU and PCNL are required, as well as an in depth analysis of the hidden costs involved in unsuccessful URL treatments.

Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy vs Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Large Ureteral Stones.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare two methods (transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy [TLU] and a combination of ureteroscopic lithotripsy [UL] with retrograde intrarenal surgery [RIRS]) designed for the treatment of large proximal ureteral calculi so that their associated complications and stone-free rates could be assessed. METHODS: A total of 100 patients from three different hospitals who were diagnosed with large upper ureteral stones (≥15 mm) were treated via TLU (n = 48) or UL-RIRS (n = 52). They were treated between March 2012 and May 2014. The study compared the complications, success rate, patient characteristics, and the operation time between the two groups. RESULTS: The immediate stone clearance rate after a single session was higher in the TLU group than in the UL-RIRS group (100% vs 73.1%, P = .005). However, there was no significant difference in the stone-free rates between the two groups three months after the last procedure was performed (100% vs 96.1%, P = .655). Regarding patients with a history of early-failure extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, there was no significant difference in the stone-free rate between the two groups three months after the last procedure (100% vs 94.4%, P > .05). Further, overall complication rates between the groups were not statistically different (P = .261). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that TLU is an effective and safe procedure to treat large impacted upper ureteral stones. When compared to UL-RIRS, TLU showed equivalent efficacy and safety, though there were failed first-line treatments.

[The effiectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in treating proxima ureteral stones].

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has proven efficacy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. The research to date has not been able to establish real time to spontaneous stone clearance after ESWL and the appropriateness and effectiveness of -blockers in stimulating residual stone clearance after ESWL. AIM: To conduct a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of ESWL in treating proximal ureteral stones and determine the appropriateness of using -blockers to stimulate residual stone clearance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ESWL was performed in 40 patients with X-ray positive proximal ureteral stones. Before ESWL and at 3 months after the treatment all patients underwent multispiral computed tomography. ESWL was considered successful if there was a complete clearance of the stones with no residual fragments on the control MSCT. If a residual ureteral stone was found at 3 months after ESWL, a 2-week course of silodosin was administered. RESULTS: Complete stone clearance was achieved in 37.5% of patients. Silodosin therapy for residual stones resulted in stone clearance in 68.4% of cases. Taken together, ESWL monotherapy and additional 3 months of lithokinetic therapy resulted in stone clearance in 70.0% of patients. The remaining patients underwent contact ureteral lithotripsy. CONCLUSION: Spontaneous stone passage after ESWL for proximal ureteral stones occurs not in all patients. Most commonly it occurred during the first three weeks after ESWL, and thereafter stone passage was not observed. In half of the patients with residual stones they were asymptomatic. The effectiveness of ESWL as a monotherapy for ureteral stones greater than 15 mm is incomplete. Adding silodosin during the long-term post ESWL period improves the passage of asymptomatic residual stones in 2/3 of patients, which makes its use promising.

Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing ureterolithotripsy (URS) with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) techniques for the management of large proximal ureteral stones (diameter greater than 10 mm). METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify suitable studies until November 2016. We used weighted mean difference to measure operative time and hospital stay, OR to measure stone free rate (SFR), and complication rate. Subgroup analyses were assessed for heterogeneity. RESULTS: Fourteen publications strictly met our eligibility criteria of which 7 were randomized control studies (RCTs) and 7 non-RCTs. Meta-analysis of extractable data showed that LU and PCNL had higher SFR than URS. URS led to a similar hospital stay like that of LU. However, it had a shorter operative time and lower complication rate than LU. When we compared URS with PCNL, we found a shorter hospital stay in the URS group. However, there was no significant difference in terms of the operative time and complication rate between URS and PCNL. CONCLUSION: URS should be considered standard therapy for treating large proximal ureteral stones.