Ureteroscopy vs laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteric stone: a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) with retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RLU) for large proximal ureteric stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective randomised trial was conducted from January 2018 through December 2022 including patients with impacted proximal ureteric stones of 15-25 mm. Patients underwent fURS or RLU. Primary outcome was the stone-free rate. Demographic data, stone features, and complications rates were also compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were enrolled, 32 in each group. The mean impacted stone time was similar between groups, as well as stone size (17 mm) and stone density (>1000 Hounsfield Units). The ureteric stone-free rates between the two groups (93.7% in fURS vs 96.8% in RLU; odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.72 to 3.17; P = 0.554), and overall success rates, which take into account residual fragments in the kidney (84.3% in fURS vs 93.7% in RLU; OR 1.02, 95% CI -0.69 to 2.74; P = 0.23), were similar. Operative time was also not statistically significantly different between groups (median 80 vs 82 min; P = 0.101). There was no difference in hospital length of stay. Retropulsion rate was higher with fURS (65.6% vs 3.1%; p < 0.001). Residual hydronephrosis (34.3% each group) and complication rates did no differ according to treatment. CONCLUSION: Flexible URS and RLU are both highly efficient and present low morbidity for large impacted proximal ureteric stone treatment. RLU is not superior to fURS.

Laparoscopic Ureterocalicostomy Technique.

PURPOSE: Ureterocalicostomy is a technique that was first described by Neuwirt in 1948 (1) The laparoscopic access was initiated in 2003 by Cherullo et al. (2), following the established principles of open surgery. In 2004, Gill et al. had two patients with UPJO treated with laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy, with success (3). In 2014, Arap et. al. presented a case series with good results in adults and children in our service (4). There are factors that prepare the surgeon for an ureterocalicostomy, such as the renal cortex thickness, although the decision is mainly taken during the procedure (5). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 24 years-old female patient with right lumbar pain was referred to our institution. She already had a right open pyeloplasty two years ago. The CT scan presented a right hydronephrotic kidney, DMSA scan with 30% of relative function and a DTPA scan with an obstructive pattern. RESULTS: A laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy was performed due to the intra-operative findings (inferior kidney pole thickness and challenging access to the uretero-pelvic junction). The overall time was 130 minutes with no complications. The patient was discharged in two days and the double J was withdrawn in four weeks. The CT scan within one year demonstrates a reduction of the hydronephrosis. She had no more lumbar pain. CONCLUSION: In complex cases, the laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy proves to be a safe and efficient procedure, with a free tension-free anastomosis and the advantages of the laparoscopic access.

Laparoscopic Ureterocalicostomy Technique

ABSTRACT Purpose: Ureterocalicostomy is a technique that was first described by Neuwirt in 1948 (1) The laparoscopic access was initiated in 2003 by Cherullo et al. (2), following the established principles of open surgery. In 2004, Gill et al. had two patients with UPJO treated with laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy, with success (3). In 2014, Arap et. al. presented a case series with good results in adults and children in our service (4). There are factors that prepare the surgeon for an ureterocalicostomy, such as the renal cortex thickness, although the decision is mainly taken during the procedure (5). Material and Methods: A 24 years-old female patient with right lumbar pain was referred to our institution. She already had a right open pyeloplasty two years ago. The CT scan presented a right hydronephrotic kidney, DMSA scan with 30% of relative function and a DTPA scan with an obstructive pattern. Results: A laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy was performed due to the intra-operative findings (inferior kidney pole thickness and challenging access to the uretero-pelvic junction). The overall time was 130 minutes with no complications. The patient was discharged in two days and the double J was withdrawn in four weeks. The CT scan within one year demonstrates a reduction of the hydronephrosis. She had no more lumbar pain. Conclusion: In complex cases, the laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy proves to be a safe and efficient procedure, with a free tension-free anastomosis and the advantages of the laparoscopic access.