BACKGROUND: To study the usefulness and safety of ureteropyeloscopy in the diagnosis of upper tract hematuria of unknown etiology by standard diagnostic methods. METHODS: Fifteen patients with upper tract hematuria of unknown etiology were the subjects of the present study. Prior to ureteropyeloscopy, they underwent standard diagnostic methods, including cystourethroscopy, excretory urography and computed tomography scan. The upper tract (ureter, renal pelvis and calyces) was inspected systematically with a flexible ureteropyeloscope under epidural anesthesia. A biopsy specimen was obtained when neoplasm of a suspicious lesion was seen. Bleeding and hemangiomatous lesions were fulgurated at the time of ureteropyeloscopy. RESULTS: Unilateral gross hematuria was seen in 12 patients. Imaging studies revealed a filling defect in four patients, ureteral stenosis in one patient and nutcracker phenomenon in one patient. Urine cytology was positive in three patients and suspicious in four patients. Results of ureteropyeloscopy were papillary tumor in three patients, whitish encrustation in one patient, redness of the renal pelvis in one patient, bleeding from the renal calyx in two patients, hemangiomatous lesion in one patient, ureteral stenosis in two patients and no abnormalities in five patients. Biopsies were performed in five patients. The pathology results were transitional cell carcinoma in four patients and no abnormality in one patient. Although a ureteral stent catheter was placed in one patient, no serious complications were encountered during or after the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Ureteropyeloscopy was useful and relatively safe. This endoscopic examination can differentiate insignificant lesions from significant lesions by visual inspection of the lesions, in addition, pathological diagnosis by biopsy specimen can also be performed if deemed necessary. Ureteropyeloscopy is recommended in the diagnosis of upper tract hematuria of unknown etiology.
BACKGROUND: To study the usefulness and safety of ureteropyeloscopy in the diagnosis of upper tract hematuria of unknown etiology by standard diagnostic methods. METHODS: Fifteen patients with upper tract hematuria of unknown etiology were the subjects of the present study. Prior to ureteropyeloscopy, they underwent standard diagnostic methods, including cystourethroscopy, excretory urography and computed tomography scan. The upper tract (ureter, renal pelvis and calyces) was inspected systematically with a flexible ureteropyeloscope under epidural anesthesia. A biopsy specimen was obtained when neoplasm of a suspicious lesion was seen. Bleeding and hemangiomatous lesions were fulgurated at the time of ureteropyeloscopy. RESULTS: Unilateral gross hematuria was seen in 12 patients. Imaging studies revealed a filling defect in four patients, ureteral stenosis in one patient and nutcracker phenomenon in one patient. Urine cytology was positive in three patients and suspicious in four patients. Results of ureteropyeloscopy were papillary tumor in three patients, whitish encrustation in one patient, redness of the renal pelvis in one patient, bleeding from the renal calyx in two patients, hemangiomatous lesion in one patient, ureteral stenosis in two patients and no abnormalities in five patients. Biopsies were performed in five patients. The pathology results were transitional cell carcinoma in four patients and no abnormality in one patient. Although a ureteral stent catheter was placed in one patient, no serious complications were encountered during or after the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Ureteropyeloscopy was useful and relatively safe. This endoscopic examination can differentiate insignificant lesions from significant lesions by visual inspection of the lesions, in addition, pathological diagnosis by biopsy specimen can also be performed if deemed necessary. Ureteropyeloscopy is recommended in the diagnosis of upper tract hematuria of unknown etiology.