Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy laser lithotripsy for treatment of urinary stones smaller than 2 cm: a cost-utility analysis in the Spanish clinical setting.

PURPOSE: To analyze the efficiency and cost-utility profile of ureteroscopy versus shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of reno-ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm. METHODS: Patients treated for urinary stones smaller than 2 cm were included in this study (n = 750) and divided into two groups based on technique of treatment. To assess the cost-utility profile a sample of 48 patients (50% of each group) was evaluated. Quality of life survey (Euroqol 5QD-3L) before-after treatment was applied, Markov model was designed to calculate quality of life in each status of the patients (stone or stone-free with and without double-J stent) and to estimate the incremental cost-utility. Monte carlo simulation was conducted for a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Chi-square was used for comparing qualitative variables and T student's for continuous variables. RESULTS: Shock wave lithotripsy group had 408 (54.4%) and ureteroscopy group had 342 (45.6%) patients. Of them, 56.3% were treated for renal stones and 43.7% for ureteral stones. Ureteroscopy produced slightly higher overall quality of patients' life, but produced a significant higher overall cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) than shock wave lithotripsy, exceeding the cost-utility threshold (20,000€/QALY). Sensitivity analysis confirmed results in 93.65% of cases. Difference was maintained in subgroup analysis (ureteral vs renal stones). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that in our clinical setting shock wave lithotripsy has better cost-utility profile than ureteroscopy for treatment of reno-ureteral stones less than 2 cm, but excluding waiting times, in ideal clinical setting, ureteroscopy would have better cost-utility profile than shock wave lithotripsy.

Predictive value of ureteral wall thickness (UWT) assessment on the success of internal ureteral stent insertion in cases with obstructing ureteral calculi.

To evaluate the possible role of ureteral wall thickness (UWT) assessment in the prediction of the success for stent placement in cases with obstructing ureteric stones. 227 adult patients with a single unilateral obstructing ureteral stone requiring internal ureteral stent placement were included. In addition to stone size, the ureteric wall thickness at the impacted stone site and the degree of hydronephrosis were also assigned on CT images. Patients were divided into two subgroups: Group 1: patients in whom internal ureteral stent could not be passed beyond the stone and Group 2: patients in whom an internal ureteral stent was passed successfully. The possible relationship between the UWT values and the success of stent placement, degree of hydronephrosis were comparatively evaluated. The majority of the stones were located in the proximal ureter in Group 1 and the degree of hydronephrosis was also higher in these cases. Moreover, while the mean value of UWT calculated on CT images was 4.3 ± 0.9 mm in Group 1, this value was noted to be 2.5 ± 0.8 mm in cases of group 2. A cutoff UWT value of 3.35 mm was highly predictive for the stent insertion and cases with higher values required additional procedures or percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement. UWT value calculated at the obstructing stone site was found to be predictive enough for the likelihood of internal ureteral stent passage with high sensitivity and specificity. This evaluation may enable the urologist to make the best decision for urinary diversion in such cases.

A prospective, matched comparison of ultra-low and standard-dose computed tomography for assessment of renal colic.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultra-low-dose computed tomography (ULDCT) compared with standard-dose CT (SDCT) in the evaluation of patients with clinically suspected renal colic, in addition to secondary features (hydroureteronephrosis, perinephric stranding) and additional pathological entities (renal masses). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, comparative cohort study was conducted amongst patients presenting to the emergency department with signs and symptoms suggestive of renal or ureteric colic. Patients underwent both SDCT and ULDCT. Single-blinded review of the image sets was performed independently by three board-certified radiologists. RESULTS: Among 21 patients, the effective radiation dose was lower for ULDCT [mean (SD) 1.02 (0.16) mSv] than SDCT [mean (SD) 4.97 (2.02) mSv]. Renal and/or ureteric calculi were detected in 57.1% (12/21) of patients. There were no significant differences in calculus detection and size estimation between ULDCT and SDCT. A higher concordance was observed for ureteric calculi (75%) than renal calculi (38%), mostly due to greater detection of calculi of <3 mm by SDCT. Clinically significant calculi (≥3 mm) were detected by ULDCT with high specificity (97.6%) and sensitivity (100%) compared to overall detection (specificity 91.2%, sensitivity 58.8%). ULDCT and SDCT were highly concordant for detection of secondary features, while ULDCT detected less renal cysts of <2 cm. Inter-observer agreement for the ureteric calculi detection was 93.9% for SDCT and 87.8% for ULDCT. CONCLUSION: ULDCT performed similarly to SDCT for calculus detection and size estimation with reduced radiation exposure. Based on this and other studies, ULDCT should be considered as the first-line modality for evaluation of renal colic in routine practice.

Cost-effectiveness of Medical Expulsive Therapy with ?-blockers for Large Distal Ureteral Stones in China.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of medical expulsive therapy (MET) versus observation for large distal ureteral stones in China and provide preliminary evidence for the determination of the course of MET by mathematical estimation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With linear success rate assumptions, a decision tree was constructed by TreeAge Pro 2011 software. The stones passage rates after observation or receiving 0.4 mg daily tamsulosin were estimated according to a large randomized clinical trial (RCT). The costs of ureteroscopy, drugs and examinations were estimated according to related price from pharmacies or hospitals, or the guidance price published by the government. MET was also compared with observation by the sensitivity analysis. The effectiveness of MET or observation was presented by quality-adjusted life-day. Mathematical estimation of stone expulsion time was made by using a decision-analytic Markov model under the assumption that the daily stone expulsion probability is constant. RESULTS: In China, the MET was associated with a $295.1 cost advantage over observation. The cost of ureteroscopy has to decrease to $77.8 to reach cost equivalence between observation and MET. Observation is cost-effective only if ureteroscopy is very cheap or the difference of stone expulsion rates is insignificant. The estimated expulsion time was much longer than those reported in above mentioned RCT. CONCLUSION: Due to the high cost of ureteroscopy, MET showed a cost advantage over observation in treating distal ureteral stones in China. The daily stone passage rate was inconstant. More studies are needed to find the appropriate duration of MET.

Cost analysis of ureteroscopy (URS) vs extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the management of ureteric stones <10 mm in adults: a UK perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the total cost of a treatment strategy starting with ureteroscopy (URS) vs a strategy starting with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). METHODS: For ureteric stones of <10 mm, URS or ESWL are the main treatment options that are considered. Although the interventions differ, the goal of the interventions is to achieve a stone-free status. A systematic review and meta-analysis undertaken as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on 'Renal and ureteric stones: assessment and management' identified URS as more effective, in terms of getting people stone free, but has a higher probability of re-admission and adverse events (AEs) that contributes to downstream resource use. ESWL is initially less costly, but lower effectiveness means a greater need for repeat or ancillary procedures in order to get a patient stone free. Given these trade-offs between benefits and costs, a cost analysis of URS and ESWL was undertaken as part of the NICE guideline, using evidence from the literature of effectiveness, re-admission and AEs. The NICE guideline meta-analysis showed a lot of heterogeneity and differences in how outcomes were reported between studies. The costing analysis, therefore only used studies where: (i) patients were rendered stone free, and (ii) where effectiveness, was based on the first-line (initial) procedures. Exploratory quality adjusted life year (QALY) work was also undertaken to identify the QALY and quality of life (QoL) differences required for the most expensive intervention to be cost effective, based on the assumption that the difference in effectiveness between the initial procedures would be the main source of the QALY gain between the two strategies. RESULTS: The URS strategy was more costly overall than the ESWL strategy (incremental cost of £2387 [pounds sterling]). Sensitivity analysis varying the initial effectiveness of ESWL treatment (between the base case value of 82% and 40%) showed that URS would still be a more costly strategy even if the initial session of ESWL only had a success probability of 40%. A two-way sensitivity analysis as part of the exploratory QALY work showed that ESWL would have to have very low effectiveness and people would have to wait for further treatment for many weeks (following a failed ESWL treatment) for there to be feasible QoL gains to justify the additional cost of the URS strategy. CONCLUSIONS: ESWL is less effective at initial stone clearance and therefore requires more ancillary interventions than URS. However, the magnitude of the difference in costs means URS is unlikely to be cost effective intervention at a population level for first-line treatment, implying ESWL should be the first choice treatment.

Radiological noninvasive assessment of ureteral stone impaction into the ureteric wall: A critical evaluation with objective radiological parameters.

PURPOSE: To determine the predictive value of certain radiological parameters for an objective asssessment of the presence of ureteral stone impaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine patients with a single proximal ureteral stones were retrieved from the departmental database. Both clinical and particularly radiological data of all cases were well evaluated on this aspect. In addition to the time period between the first colic attack and definitive management; diameter of proximal ureter and renal pelvis, longitudinal and transverse stone size, Hounsfied unit (HU) of the stone and lastly ureteral wall thickness at the impacted stone site were all carefully evaluated and noted. RESULTS: Patients had a single proximal ureteral stone. While mean age of the cases was ranged 20 to 78 years; mean stone size was 15.62±4.26 mm. Evaluation of our data demonstrated that although there was a statistically significant correlation between ureteral wall thickness and patients age, transverse diameter of the stone, ureteral diameter just proximal to the stone, renal pelvic diameter and the duration of renal colic attacks; no correlation could be demonstrated between patients sex and the HU of the stone. CONCLUSIONS: Prediction of the presence and degree of proximal ureteral stone impaction is a challenging issue and our data indicated a highly significant correlation between ureteral wall thickness and the some certain radiological as well as clinical parameters evaluated which will give an objective information about the presence of impaction which may in turn be helpful in the follow-up and also management plans of such calculi.

Evaluation of low-dose dual energy computed tomography for in vivo assessment of renal/ureteric calculus composition.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the accuracy of low-dose dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in predicting the composition of urinary calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 52 patients with urinary calculi were scanned with a 128-slice dual-source DECT scanner by use of a low-dose protocol. Dual-energy (DE) ratio, weighted average Hounsfield unit (HU) of calculi, radiation dose, and image noise levels were recorded. Two radiologists independently rated study quality. Stone composition was assessed after extraction by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIRS). Analysis of variance was used to determine if the differences in HU values and DE ratios between the various calculus groups were significant. Threshold cutoff values to classify the calculi into separate groups were identified by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: A total of 137 calculi were detected. FTIRS analysis differentiated the calculi into five groups: uric acid (n=17), struvite (n=3), calcium oxalate monohydrate and dihydrate (COM-COD, n=84), calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM, n=28), and carbonate apatite (n=5). The HU value could differentiate only uric acid calculi from calcified calculi (p<0.001). The DE ratio could confidently differentiate uric acid, struvite, calcium oxalate, and carbonate apatite calculi (p<0.001) with cutoff values of 1.12, 1.34, and 1.66, respectively, giving >80% sensitivity and specificity to differentiate them. The DE ratio could not differentiate COM from COM-COD calculi. No study was rated poor in quality by either of the observers. The mean radiation dose was 1.8 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose DECT accurately predicts urinary calculus composition in vivo while simultaneously reducing radiation exposure without compromising study quality.

Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of previous randomised controlled trials concluded that the smooth muscle relaxant drugs tamsulosin and nifedipine assisted stone passage for people managed expectantly for ureteric colic, but emphasised the need for high-quality trials with wide inclusion criteria. We aimed to fulfil this need by testing effectiveness of these drugs in a standard clinical care setting. METHODS: For this multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited adults (aged 18-65 years) undergoing expectant management for a single ureteric stone identified by CT at 24 UK hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned by a remote randomisation system to tamsulosin 400 µg, nifedipine 30 mg, or placebo taken daily for up to 4 weeks, using an algorithm with centre, stone size (≤5 mm or >5 mm), and stone location (upper, mid, or lower ureter) as minimisation covariates. Participants, clinicians, and trial personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who did not need further intervention for stone clearance within 4 weeks of randomisation, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population defined as all eligible patients for whom we had primary outcome data. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT number 2010-019469-26, and as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 69423238. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2011, and Dec 20, 2013, we randomly assigned 1167 participants, 1136 (97%) of whom were included in the primary analysis (17 were excluded because of ineligibility and 14 participants were lost to follow-up). 303 (80%) of 379 participants in the placebo group did not need further intervention by 4 weeks, compared with 307 (81%) of 378 in the tamsulosin group (adjusted risk difference 1·3% [95% CI -5·7 to 8·3]; p=0·73) and 304 (80%) of 379 in the nifedipine group (0·5% [-5·6 to 6·5]; p=0·88). No difference was noted between active treatment and placebo (p=0·78), or between tamsulosin and nifedipine (p=0·77). Serious adverse events were reported in three participants in the nifedipine group (one had right loin pain, diarrhoea, and vomiting; one had malaise, headache, and chest pain; and one had severe chest pain, difficulty breathing, and left arm pain) and in one participant in the placebo group (headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, and chronic abdominal pain). INTERPRETATION: Tamsulosin 400 µg and nifedipine 30 mg are not effective at decreasing the need for further treatment to achieve stone clearance in 4 weeks for patients with expectantly managed ureteric colic. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Assessment of the suitability of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy as a treatment for complex proximal ureteral calculi.

AIM: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the suitability of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) in the treatment of complex proximal ureteral calculi. METHODS: Included were 24 patients who underwent RPLU for complex proximal ureteral stones from November 2008 to June 2010. RESULTS: A retroperitoneal approach was performed in 23 patients with a mean operative time of 79.6 min (range of 65-130 min) and mean intraoperative blood loss of 20.1 mL (10-50 mL). No postoperative complications were encountered within during the follow-up period of 9.1 months (3-22 months). Only one patient who underwent RPLU within one week of failed ESWL was converted to open surgery due to severe adhesions around ureter and the injury of aberrant renal artery at the lower pole of left kidney encountered during the RPLU. CONCLUSION: RPLU is safe and effective in the treatment of complex upper ureteral stones and can become a first-line surgical management of the disease.

Clinical efficacy, safety, and costs of percutaneous occlusive balloon catheter-assisted ureteroscopic lithotripsy for large impacted proximal ureteral calculi: a prospective, randomized study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety, and costs of percutaneous occlusive balloon catheter-assisted ureteroscopic lithotripsy (POBC-URSL) for large impacted proximal ureteral calculi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 156 patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones ≥1.5 cm in size were randomized to ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), POBC-URSL, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) group between May 2010 and May 2013. For URSL, the calculi were disintegrated with the assistance of anti-retropulsion devices. POBC-URSL was performed with the assistance of an 8F percutaneous occlusive balloon catheter. PNL was finished with the combination of an ultrasonic and a pneumatic lithotripter. A flexible ureteroscope and a 200 µm laser fiber were used to achieve stone-free status to a large extent for each group. Variables studied were mean operative time, auxiliary procedure, postoperative hospital stay, operation-related complications, stone clearance rate, and treatment costs. RESULTS: The mean lithotripsy time for POBC-URSL was shorter than URSL, but longer than PNL (42.6±8.9 minutes vs 66.7±15.3 minutes vs 28.1±6.3 minutes, p=0.014). The auxiliary procedure rate and postoperative fever rate for POBC-URSL were significantly lower than URSL and comparable to PNL (p<0.01, p=0.034). POBC-URSL was superior to URSL with regard to the stone clearance rate at 3 days postoperatively, and as good as PNL (98.1% vs 75.0% vs 96.2%, p<0.01). The postoperative hospital stay and hematuria rate were lower in POBC-URSL group than PNL group and similar to URSL group (p=0.016, p<0.01). The treatment costs were lowest in POBC-URSL group ($1205.0±$113.9 vs $1731.7±$208.1 vs $2446.4±$166.4, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: For large impacted proximal ureteral calculi, POBC-URSL was associated with a higher stone clearance rate, fewer complications and costs. POBC-URSL combined the advantages of URSL and PNL.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for proximal ureteral calculi with severe hydronephrosis: assessment of different lithotriptors.

PURPOSE: We compared the efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with different intracorporeal lithotriptors for proximal ureteral stones in patients with severe hydronephrosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the records of 192 patients with proximal ureteral calculi and severe hydronephrosis who underwent PCNL between February 2003 and December 2007. Calculi were fragmented with a pneumatic lithotriptor in 44 patients (group 1), Swiss Lithoclast Master in 54 (group 2), low-power holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) laser in 56 (group 3) and high-power holmium:YAG laser in 38 (group 4). Patients were assessed about 12 months postoperatively with intravenous urography and ultrasonography for late complications. Stone size, operative time, stone-free rate, and follow-up were analyzed in each group. RESULTS: Mean stone size for different groups were 16.2 +/- 2.8 mm, 16.6 +/- 2.1 mm, 16.0 +/- 2.7 mm, and 16.4 +/- 1.1 mm, respectively. Average operative time for different groups were 118 +/- 17 minutes, 81 +/- 10 minutes, 85 +/- 14 minutes, 110 +/- 16 minutes, respectively. Group 2 and group 3 showed superior outcomes of shorter operative time (P = 0.000). The overall stone-free rate was 86.5%. As stratified by lithotriptors, the stone-free rate was 81.8% in group 1, 92.9% in group 2, 88.9% in group 3, and 78.9% in group 4 (P = 0.190). No significant difference was found among the groups in terms of blood loss and postoperative hospital stay. Repeated PCNL or shockwave lithotripsy was necessary as an auxiliary procedure in 26 patients. The overall complication rate was 18.2%; most complications were minor and insignificant. During the follow-up, ureteral stricture developed in 10 patients and new renal stones developed in 4 patients. CONCLUSIONS: PCNL combined with Swiss Lithoclast Master or low-power holmium:YAG laser is the preferred endourologic modality for the management of proximal ureteral calculi in patients with severe hydronephrosis.

Rapid, economical treatment of large impacted calculi in the proximal ureter with ballistic ureteral lithotripsy and occlusive, percutaneous balloon catheter: the high pressure irrigation technique.

PURPOSE: We describe our innovative technique for the treatment of large calculi (greater than 1.5 cm) of the proximal ureter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2003 and 2005 we positioned an 8Ch pyelostomy in 25 patients diagnosed with impacted calculi of the proximal ureter greater than 1.5 cm on ultrasound, direct x-ray of the abdomen, and/or computerized tomography and subsequent retrograde pyelography. After 30 days all patients underwent combined treatment in the Valdivia supine position, including positioning a 0.035-inch guidewire through the pyelostomy into the ureter up to above the calculus, pyelostomy removal and insertion onto the guide of a 7Ch balloon occlusion catheter, which was inflated in the ureter immediately above the calculus. Ureteral lithotripsy was done with an 8.5 to 11.5Ch ureteroscope (Wolf, Dudley, Massachusetts) with a 6Ch operating channel and a Calcusplit ballistic probe, alternating high antegrade pressure by the balloon catheter and retrograde pressure using the ureteroscope, as required. After lithotripsy and fragment dislocation the ureteroscope was retracted with rapid flow antegrade irrigation. At the end of the procedure after antegrade contrast medium followup the balloon catheter was retracted as far as the pelvis as a nephrostomy. We analyzed operative time, the number of postoperative recovery days, the incidence of complications during and after surgery, and the stone-free rate immediately, after 5 days and after 1 month. RESULTS: Average calculus size was 1.7 cm. Ten patients presented with multiple ureteral bending upon diagnosis, which was no longer found at surgery with a consequent lack of difficult ureteroscope feeding. Significant edema downstream of the calculus was present in all cases. High pressure irrigation, a rigid ballistic probe and retrieving forceps enabled the dislocation of even larger fragments from the original calculous site in all cases. Antegrade high pressure irrigation after lithotripsy enabled the complete clearance of calcareous fragments as far as the bladder without the need for ancillary maneuvers. We observed no cases of calcareous fragment push-back. No retroperitoneal extravasation, or pyelolymphatic or pyelovenous backflow was observed. Average procedure time was 33 minutes. The renal-ureteral stone-free rate was 100% at the end of the procedure and all calcareous fragments were in the bladder. We did not observe any ureteral lesions. In no case was there onset of fever. Average postoperative hospitalization was 2 days. Followup with contrast material after 5 days showed a renal-ureteral stone-free rate of 100% and a bladder stone-free rate of 84%. The nephrostomy was removed at an average of 5.5 days. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the techniques described in the medical literature our method appears to have certain advantages, including a mini-invasive approach to the renal pelvis compared to that of percutaneous nephrolithotomy with protection of the renal parenchyma from high pressure, rigid ureteroscope use, which provides a high level of maneuverability and low operating costs, ballistic probe use, which provides lower costs and higher speeds than the laser, and balloon catheter use, which removes the risk of push-back and enables push-down of the fragments without any further ancillary maneuvers. The balloon catheter also enables contrast medium followup and immediate postoperative drainage. The speed of the procedure and the ability to adjust antegrade or retrograde flow with variable pressure and direction make this technique highly suitable for the complete resolution of large, impacted calculi of the proximal ureter.

Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for management of large upper third ureteral stones.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a prospective and randomized trial to compare the efficiency quotient and cost-effectiveness index of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) for the treatment of large upper third ureteral stones. METHODS: A total of 35 male patients and 7 female patients with a solitary, radiopaque upper ureteral stone, 15 mm or more in diameter, who underwent SWL or URSL were enrolled in this study. The mean patient age was 53.1 +/- 14.5 years. The endpoint of the study was for the patient to be stone free or to have insignificant residual stone (3 mm or less) within the kidney. RESULTS: The mean stone length +/- SD was 17.9 +/- 3.9 cm in the SWL group and 18.5 +/- 2.9 cm in the URSL group (P > 0.05). The efficiency quotient for SWL and URSL was 0.61 and 0.63, respectively. The cost-effectiveness index, treatment time, pain score, and hospital stay were greater in the URSL group. However, the degree of hydronephrosis significantly influenced the success rate of SWL. All patients with severe hydronephrosis in the SWL group needed auxiliary surgical procedures to become stone free. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency quotients of SWL and URSL were comparable in the treatment of large upper third ureteral stones. However, SWL should not be recommended as the first-line treatment option for the management of upper third ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm with severe hydronephrosis. Understanding the cost-effectiveness, success rate, pain score, and patient satisfaction score for the two different approaches constitutes the indispensable requisites for choosing the optimal first-line therapeutic strategy.

Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones.

PURPOSE: Management of large impacted upper ureteral calculi remains challenging for urologists. These calculi are frequently associated with obstructive uropathy and deteriorated renal function. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the least invasive treatment but its success rate is decreased for large impacted upper ureteral calculi. According to the American Urological Association guidelines on ureteral stones published in 1997, the appropriateness of ureteroscopy decreases when stone size exceeds 1 cm. However, the application of advanced ureteroscopy and techniques has increased the success rate of treating proximal ureter calculi. In this study we compared the safety and efficacy of ureterorenoscopic holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy (URSL) with SWL for large impacted proximal ureteral stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated 82 patients with large impacted upper ureteral stones. Two patients were excluded from study owing to conversion to open surgery. SWL and URSL were performed in 41 and 39 patients, respectively. Those in the SWL group were treated on an outpatient basis with Medispec Econolith 2000 (Medispec, Germantown, Maryland) under intravenous sedation. The URSL was performed with a 6/7.5Fr semirigid tapered ureterorenoscope and holmium:YAG laser with the patient under spinal anesthesia on an inpatient basis. Successful outcome was defined as the patient being stone-free on radiography 1 month after treatment. Stone size, success rate, postoperative complications and cost were analyzed in each group. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled in this study. Hematuria and flank pain were the most common complaints in each group. Mean stone size +/- SD was 1.28 +/- 0.04 cm in the SWL group and 1.51 +/- 0.05 cm in URSL group (p = 0.0009). Accessibility of the semirigid ureterorenoscope for impacted upper ureteral stones was 95.1% (39 of 41) and the stone-free rate achieved after 1 sitting was 92% (36 of 39). The initial stone-free rate of in situ SWL was 61% (25 of 41). Notably, the initial stone-free rate in the URSL group was better than that of the SWL group (p = 0.003). The efficiency quotient was 0.53 for URSL and 0.59 for SWL. The average cost in the URSL group appears to be lower than in the SWL group. Both groups were free of major complications. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that URSL achieved excellent results for upper ureteral calculi greater than 1 cm. Thus, this procedure should be considered first line therapy for large proximal ureteral stones.