OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and complications of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy with laparoscopic ureter laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in mid- or proximal portion of large ureteral stones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed patients with large (>15 mm) ureteral stone and those who underwent ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (URS group) or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU group). The first attempt was considered successful in patients who had residual fragments smaller than 2 mm and no conversion of the primary procedure to another. RESULTS: Sixty patients (URS group 29, LU group 31) met inclusion criteria. FURS was used as an adjunctive procedure in one patient for URS group and in two patients for LU group in the same season. LU had a higher success rate and the first-day stone-free rate when compared with URS. Number of procedures was also significantly higher in URS group. There was no difference in stone-free rates at the first and third months, and length of hospitalization and operation were higher in the LU group. Only two patients in the LU group and one patient in the URS group had major complications. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy is an effective option of large proximal and mid-ureter stone treatment; however, URS provides similar stone-free rates at three months as a minimal invasive procedure.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and complications of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy with laparoscopic ureter laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in mid- or proximal portion of large ureteral stones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed patients with large (>15 mm) ureteral stone and those who underwent ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (URS group) or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU group). The first attempt was considered successful in patients who had residual fragments smaller than 2 mm and no conversion of the primary procedure to another. RESULTS: Sixty patients (URS group 29, LU group 31) met inclusion criteria. FURS was used as an adjunctive procedure in one patient for URS group and in two patients for LU group in the same season. LU had a higher success rate and the first-day stone-free rate when compared with URS. Number of procedures was also significantly higher in URS group. There was no difference in stone-free rates at the first and third months, and length of hospitalization and operation were higher in the LU group. Only two patients in the LU group and one patient in the URS group had major complications. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy is an effective option of large proximal and mid-ureter stone treatment; however, URS provides similar stone-free rates at three months as a minimal invasive procedure.