PURPOSE: We compared our experience with ureteroscopic stone basket manipulation under fluoroscopic guidance to ultrasound ureterolithotripsy for distal ureteral stone removal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospectively, we analyzed the medical records of 981 patients with ureteral calculi between January 1994 and December 1995, of whom 483 (49%) were treated for stones in the lower ureter and constituted our study group. The decision of when to perform lithotripsy (group 2) versus a basket procedure (group 1) was based on a prospective nonrandomized study and both groups were compared historically. All 322 patients in group 1 (mean age 49 years, range 14 to 86) primarily underwent ureteroscopic stone basket manipulation using the 4-wire Segura* basket. If the calculus could not be removed with the basket and another procedure was necessary, the case was considered a failure. The 161 patients in group 2 (mean age 37 years, range 14 to 74) underwent initially ultrasound ureterolithotripsy for stone fragmentation followed or not by removal of the fragments with the basket. Stone size did not differ significantly between groups 1 (mean 0.9 cm., range 0.6 to 1.7) and 2 (mean 0.8 cm., range 0.7 to 2.0). Ureteroscopy was performed in both groups with epidural anesthesia and on an outpatient basis in the majority of cases. RESULTS: The stone-free rate after 1 procedure was 98.1 and 95.6% in group 1 and 2, respectively. For group 2 versus group 1 the operative time was longer (mean 50, range 25 to 90 versus mean 19 minutes, range 11 to 40, respectively, p < 0.001), the complication rate was greater (16.1 versus 4.3%, respectively, p < 0.001) and average hospital stay was longer (2.1 versus 0.15 day, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ureteroscopic stone treatment with basket manipulation under fluoroscopic guidance or ultrasound ureterolithotripsy provided a high stone-free rate. However, stone removal with the basket manipulation technique should be considered the first choice for treatment of small distal ureteral calculi based on the minimal morbidity, and short operative and recovery times.
PURPOSE: We compared our experience with ureteroscopic stone basket manipulation under fluoroscopic guidance to ultrasound ureterolithotripsy for distal ureteral stone removal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospectively, we analyzed the medical records of 981 patients with ureteral calculi between January 1994 and December 1995, of whom 483 (49%) were treated for stones in the lower ureter and constituted our study group. The decision of when to perform lithotripsy (group 2) versus a basket procedure (group 1) was based on a prospective nonrandomized study and both groups were compared historically. All 322 patients in group 1 (mean age 49 years, range 14 to 86) primarily underwent ureteroscopic stone basket manipulation using the 4-wire Segura* basket. If the calculus could not be removed with the basket and another procedure was necessary, the case was considered a failure. The 161 patients in group 2 (mean age 37 years, range 14 to 74) underwent initially ultrasound ureterolithotripsy for stone fragmentation followed or not by removal of the fragments with the basket. Stone size did not differ significantly between groups 1 (mean 0.9 cm., range 0.6 to 1.7) and 2 (mean 0.8 cm., range 0.7 to 2.0). Ureteroscopy was performed in both groups with epidural anesthesia and on an outpatient basis in the majority of cases. RESULTS: The stone-free rate after 1 procedure was 98.1 and 95.6% in group 1 and 2, respectively. For group 2 versus group 1 the operative time was longer (mean 50, range 25 to 90 versus mean 19 minutes, range 11 to 40, respectively, p < 0.001), the complication rate was greater (16.1 versus 4.3%, respectively, p < 0.001) and average hospital stay was longer (2.1 versus 0.15 day, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ureteroscopic stone treatment with basket manipulation under fluoroscopic guidance or ultrasound ureterolithotripsy provided a high stone-free rate. However, stone removal with the basket manipulation technique should be considered the first choice for treatment of small distal ureteral calculi based on the minimal morbidity, and short operative and recovery times.
Authors: Steeve Doizi; Guido Kamphuis; Guido Giusti; J L Palmero; J M Patterson; Silvia Proietti; Michael Straub; Jean de la Rosette; Olivier Traxer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-12-17 Impact factor: 4.226