PURPOSE: We compare the success rate and complications of retrograde ureteroscopy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of large upper ureteral stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 73 patients with large (≥1 cm) upper ureteral stones at two institutions from January 2010 to May 2013. Twenty-two patients underwent retrograde ureteroscopy (group ULS), 30 patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (group PCNL), and 21 patients underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (group LS) for removal of upper ureteral stones. CT, intravenous urography, and ultrasound were performed 1 week and 1 month after surgical removal. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, sex, or stone size among the three groups. Mean estimated blood loss and mean hospital stay showed a statistically significant difference among the three groups. Success rates in the PCNL, LS, and ULS groups were 100%, 90.5%, and 77.3%, respectively. The procedures of two patients in group LS were converted to open surgery because of the inability to find the ureteral stone in one patient and an adhesion too difficult to dissect in the other. The procedures of two patients in the ULS group were converted to LS, and those of three patients were converted to PCNL because of severe edema impaction at the site of the stone, a sharply angulated ureter obstruction, upward migration of the stone (seven patients), and intraoperative complications (two patients). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous antegrade nephrolithotomy is a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for patients with large upper ureteral stones that has several advantages over retrograde ureteroscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Thus, percutaneous antegrade nephrolithotomy is recommended as a safe and good treatment option for large upper ureteral stones. A combined procedure (e.g., ureteral push-back and percutaneous removal) can be considered in some patients.
PURPOSE: We compare the success rate and complications of retrograde ureteroscopy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of large upper ureteral stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 73 patients with large (≥1 cm) upper ureteral stones at two institutions from January 2010 to May 2013. Twenty-two patients underwent retrograde ureteroscopy (group ULS), 30 patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (group PCNL), and 21 patients underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (group LS) for removal of upper ureteral stones. CT, intravenous urography, and ultrasound were performed 1 week and 1 month after surgical removal. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, sex, or stone size among the three groups. Mean estimated blood loss and mean hospital stay showed a statistically significant difference among the three groups. Success rates in the PCNL, LS, and ULS groups were 100%, 90.5%, and 77.3%, respectively. The procedures of two patients in group LS were converted to open surgery because of the inability to find the ureteral stone in one patient and an adhesion too difficult to dissect in the other. The procedures of two patients in the ULS group were converted to LS, and those of three patients were converted to PCNL because of severe edema impaction at the site of the stone, a sharply angulated ureter obstruction, upward migration of the stone (seven patients), and intraoperative complications (two patients). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous antegrade nephrolithotomy is a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for patients with large upper ureteral stones that has several advantages over retrograde ureteroscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Thus, percutaneous antegrade nephrolithotomy is recommended as a safe and good treatment option for large upper ureteral stones. A combined procedure (e.g., ureteral push-back and percutaneous removal) can be considered in some patients.
Authors: Michael Ordon; Sero Andonian; Brian Blew; Trevor Schuler; Ben Chew; Kenneth T Pace Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Jason Y Lee; Sero Andonian; Naeem Bhojani; Jennifer Bjazevic; Ben H Chew; Shubha De; Hazem Elmansy; Andrea G Lantz-Powers; Kenneth T Pace; Trevor D Schuler; Rajiv K Singal; Peter Wang; Michael Ordon Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.862