PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Ureteroscopy”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Is antegrade ureteroscopy better than retrograde ureteroscopy for impacted large upper ureteral calculi?

OBJECTIVE: This study was planned to compare the risks and advantages of antegrade and retrograde ureteroscopy for impacted large upper ureteral calculi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 1996 to February 1998, ureteroscopy was offered to 43 patients. Of these, retrograde ureteroscopy was done in 20 patients, while antegrade ureteroscopy was performed in 23 patients. All these patients were followed up to evaluate the immediate and long-term success of the procedure. The incidence and nature of complications were also noted. RESULTS: During retrograde ureteroscopy, complete stone clearance was achieved in 11 patients (55%), while pushback of the whole or fragmented calculus was seen in the rest. These patients with residual calculi were later treated by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). The stone-free rate at the end of 3 months was 85%. Three patients developed minor ureteroscopy-related complications. Complete stone clearance was achieved in all patients with antegrade ureteroscopy. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were encountered. CONCLUSION: In this series, antegrade ureteroscopy was found to be a safe and effective option for impacted upper ureteral calculi and assured better results than retrograde ureteroscopy.

Female↗
PubMed2026

Suction-assisted ureteroscopy compared with traditional ureteroscopy for renal stones ≤ 2 cm: a systematic review, Bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Suction-enhanced flexible ureteroscopy (URS) aims to improve stone clearance and reduce complications. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of flexible aspiration navigable sheaths (FANS) and direct in-scope suction (DISS) for renal calculi ≤ 2 cm. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted through June 2026. Comparative studies of FANS, DISS, or conventional access sheaths for renal stones ≤ 2 cm were included. The primary outcome was 30-day stone-free rate (SFR). Secondary outcomes included operative time, fever, sepsis, and complications. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis synthesized direct and indirect evidence. RESULTS: Seventeen studies including 3,657 patients (1,677 FANS, 56 DISS, 1,924 control) were included. FANS showed higher SFR (OR 2.5, 95% CrI 2.0-3.1), while grouped DISS had a similar but less precise effect (OR 3.1, 95% CrI 1.0-8.8). Calyxo V2 had the highest SFR (OR 5.4, 95% CrI 1.0-29.0), whereas PUSEN showed no significant difference (OR 1.6, 95% CrI 0.41-6.3). FANS reduced postoperative fever and complications. FANS also showed lower odds of postoperative sepsis (OR 0.40, 95% CrI 0.12-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Suction-assisted ureteroscopy improves SFR for renal calculi ≤ 2 cm. FANS was associated with shorter operative time, fever, and complications. DISS systems show promising but limited results, with performance differing by technology configuration. Larger prospective trials are needed.

Humans↗
PubMed1985

[Technic and results of ureteroscopy for ureteral lithiasis. Apropos of 54 ureteroscopies].

Rigid ureteroscopy has been performed 54 times in 49 patients with ureteral stones. In 72% of the cases stones were removed or disintegrated with the ultrasound or electrohydraulic probe. Best results were obtained in the pelvic ureter (96,5% success). In the lumbar ureter only 56% success was obtained. Complications were observed in 15% of the cases, however only one complication necessitated an immediate open surgical operation.

Endoscopy↗
PubMed2006

Primary ureteroscopy for distal-ureteral stones compared with ureteroscopy after failed extracorporeal lithotripsy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We reviewed our experiences with ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS-PL) for the treatment of distal-ureteral stones and investigated whether failed extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a limiting factor for the ureteroscopic procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied the medical records of 375 patients treated with URS-PL from January 1999 to September 2005 in our clinic. Of these patients, 213 were treated with URS-PL primarily (group 1), whereas the remaining 162 patients had undergone SWL unsuccessfully before URS-PL was performed (group 2). We used 9F or 9.5F rigid instruments and the Vibrolith (Elmed, Ankara, Turkey). RESULTS: In group 1, 206 patients (96.7%) were treated successfully with URS alone, as were 155 patients (95.6%) in group 2. Impacted stones were observed in 21 patients in group 1 (9.85%) and in 57 patients in group 2 (35.1%). The average operating time was 33.19 +/- 9.039 minutes in group 1 and 57.42 +/- 8.757 minutes in group 2. The stone-free rates of the two groups were significantly different on the first postoperative day, but this difference decreased to an insignificant level at the end of the first month. CONCLUSION: When SWL fails, URS-PL is as safe and effective as primary URS. Pneumatic lithotripsy also seems to be effective for impacted stones.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi.

PURPOSE: We compared the efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treatment of distal ureteral calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 64 patients with solitary, radiopaque distal ureteral calculi 15 mm. or less in largest diameter were randomized to treatment with shock wave lithotripsy (32) using an HM3 lithotriptor (Dornier MedTech, Kennesaw, Georgia) or ureteroscopy (32). Patient and stone characteristics, treatment parameters, clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction and cost were assessed for each group. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable in regard to patient age, sex, body mass index, stone size, degree of hydronephrosis and time to treatment. Procedural and operating room times were statistically significantly shorter for the shock wave lithotripsy compared to the ureteroscopy group (34 and 72 versus 65 and 97 minutes, respectively). In addition, 94% of patients who underwent shock wave lithotripsy versus 75% who underwent ureteroscopy were discharged home the day of procedure. At a mean followup of 21 and 24 days for shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy, respectively, 91% of patients in each group had undergone imaging with a plain abdominal radiograph, and all studies showed resolution of the target stone. Minor complications occurred in 9% and 25% of the shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy groups, respectively (p value was not significant). No ureteral perforation or stricture occurred in the ureteroscopy group. Postoperative flank pain and dysuria were more severe in the ureteroscopy than shock wave lithotripsy group, although the differences were not statistically significant. Patient satisfaction was high, including 94% for shock wave lithotripsy and 87% for ureteroscopy (p value not significant). Cost favored ureteroscopy by $1,255 if outpatient treatment for both modalities was assumed. CONCLUSIONS: Ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy were associated with high success and low complication rates. However, shock wave lithotripsy required significantly less operating time, was more often performed on an outpatient basis, and showed a trend towards less flank pain and dysuria, fewer complications and quicker convalescence. Patient satisfaction was uniformly high in both groups. Although ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy are highly effective for treatment of distal ureteral stones, we believe that HM3 shock wave lithotripsy, albeit slightly more costly, is preferable to manipulation with ureteroscopy since it is equally efficacious, more efficient and less morbid.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

Ureteroscopy: an outpatient procedure?

Ureteroscopy is used in the diagnosis and treatment of many urological conditions. The technique of ureteroscopy has been simplified by the introduction of smaller ureteroscopes and by an increase in the variety of accessory instruments that can be passed through the ureteroscope. Despite those advances, recent reports indicate that ureteroscopy is still generally considered an inpatient procedure. Since 1987 we have performed most of our ureteroscopic procedures on an outpatient basis. We reviewed the records of 176 patients who underwent ureteroscopy between 1988 and 1990, of whom 84 (47.7%) underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with the same anesthesia. We treated 134 patients (76.1% of the total group) as outpatients, while 20 (11.4%) chose to remain in the hospital overnight for personal reasons, 10 (5.7%) required additional surgery after ureteroscopy and 12 (6.8%) required hospitalization for preexisting medical problems or for problems that resulted from ureteroscopy. Of the 134 patients who were discharged from the hospital on the day of ureteroscopy only 4 (3.0%) required rehospitalization. The addition of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy to ureteroscopy during the same period of anesthesia did not increase the need for hospitalization. Ureteroscopy should be considered an outpatient procedure. The decision to hospitalize a patient after ureteroscopy should be based on preexisting medical problems or on problems that result from ureteroscopy. Routine hospitalization for observation is unnecessary.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy.

PURPOSE: We determine whether there is a significant relationship between the spatial anatomy of the lower pole, as seen on preoperative excretory urography (IVP), and the outcome after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy for a solitary lower pole caliceal stone 15 mm. or less. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1992 and June 1996, 34 patients with 15 mm. or less solitary lower pole stone underwent ureteroscopy with intracorporeal lithotripsy (13) or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) with a Dornier HM3 lithotriptor (21). On pretreatment IVP lower pole infundibular length and width, infundibulopelvic angle of the stone bearing calix were measured. Stone size and area were determined from an abdominal plain x-ray. A plain x-ray of the kidneys, ureters and bladder was obtained in all patients at a median followup of 12.3 and 8 months in the ureteroscopy and ESWL groups, respectively. RESULTS: After initial therapy the overall stone-free rate was 62 and 52% in the ureteroscopy and ESWL groups, respectively. Stone-free status after ESWL was significantly related to each anatomical measurement. Infundibulopelvic angle 90 degrees or greater, and infundibular length less than 3 cm. and width greater than 5 mm. were each noted to correlate with an improved stone-free rate after ESWL. In contrast, the stone-free rate after ureteroscopy was not statistically significantly impacted by these anatomical features, although a clinical stone-free trend was identified relating to a favorable infundibular length and infundibulopelvic angle. The infundibulopelvic angle was 90 degrees or greater in 4 stone-free patients (12% overall), including 2 who underwent ureteroscopy and 2 who underwent ESWL. On the other hand, in 2 and 4 stone-free patients (18% overall) who underwent ureteroscopy and ESWL, respectively, favorable radiographic features consisted of a short, wide but acutely angulated infundibulum with the infundibulopelvic angle less than 90 degrees, and infundibular length less than 3 cm. and width 5 mm. or greater. In contrast, in 4 and 6 patients (29% overall) who underwent ureteroscopy and ESWL, respectively, all 3 radiographic features were unfavorable with the infundibulopelvic angle less than 90 degrees, and infundibular length greater than 3 cm. and width less than 5 mm. In these cases the stone-free rate was 50 and 17% after ureteroscopy and ESWL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 3 major radiographic features of the lower pole calix (infundibulopelvic angle, and infundibular length and width) can be easily measured on standard IVP using a ruler and protractor. Each factor individually has a statistically significant influence on stone clearance after ESWL. A wide infundibulopelvic angle or short infundibular length and broad infundibular width regardless of infundibulopelvic angle are significant favorable factors for stone clearance following ESWL. Conversely, these factors have a cumulatively negative effect on the stone clearance rate after ESWL when they are all unfavorable. In ureteroscopy spatial anatomy has less of a role in regard to stone clearance but it may have a negative impact when there is uniformly unfavorable anatomy.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

[Rigid and flexible ureteroscopy. Apropos of 200 consecutive cases].

191 patients underwent a total of 200 ureteroscopies. Indications for these were as follows: ureter stones (172 cases); ureteral anomalies undiagnosed by other methods (20 cases); therapeutic ureteroscopy (8 cases). Stones: ureteroscopy for stones was carried out using either a rigid instrument (156 cases) or a flexible ureteroscope (16 cases). The localization of the stones was pelvic (123 cases), iliac (18 cases) or lumbar (10 cases). The stones were either removed directly using the basket under visual control (74/139 cases), or removed by ultrasonic/laser fragmentation (65/139 cases). As regards the rigid ureteroscope, success rates were 89% (139/156); 15 patients required additional therapy. Repeated ureteroscopic interventions always provided positive results. As concerns flexible ureteroscopy, we only had one positive result; 15 failure cases warranted repeated additional treatments. In three instances, failure with flexible ureteroscopy was corrected by using the rigid device during the same surgical period. We observed a single case of major complication in this series, i.e., a laterovesical urinoma which necessitated surgical drainage and was linked to the lack of ureteral drainage following ureteroscopy. Diagnostic ureteroscopic examinations: in 20 instances, ureteroscopy allowed to diagnose with precision the ureteral abnormality. No complication was reported following diagnostic ureteroscopy. Therapeutic ureteroscopy: such interventions were carried out to introduce a guide into the renal cavities (3 cases); to remove a double J stent, the lower extremity of which had moved up into the ureter (3 cases); or to carry out endoscopic ureterotomy (2 cases). Ureteroscopy is a safe and reliable method for the treatment of ureteral stones, and more particularly of stones localized in the distal part of the ureter.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Cystoscopes↗
PubMed2006

Retrograde proximal rigid ureteroscopy and pyeloscopy in prepubertal children: safe and effective.

PURPOSE: Traditionally, rigid ureteroscopy in adults has been reserved for distal ureteral procedures, due to the risk of injury associated with proximal ureteroscopy. However, the safety of proximal rigid ureteroscopy in prepubertal children is not well established. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all prepubertal children (12 years old and younger) who underwent attempted rigid proximal ureteroscopy and pyeloscopy. The indications for ureteroscopy were treatment of ureteral and/or renal pelvic calculi, and evaluation of hematuria. All patients were evaluated postoperatively with renal and bladder ultrasonography and abdominal radiography (if stone was visible before treatment). RESULTS: A total of 24 consecutive children 3.4 to 12 years old underwent 24 ureteropyeloscopic procedures. Of these children 20 (83%) successfully underwent 20 rigid ureteroscopic and pyeloscopic procedures. However, 4 procedures (17%) were converted from rigid to flexible endoscopy to perform 4 successful ureteropyeloscopies. The indications for ureteroscopy were treatment of ureteral and/or renal pelvic calculi in 22 patients and evaluation of hematuria in 2. Followup was 0.6 to 3.6 years (mean 1.9) for the patients undergoing rigid ureteropyeloscopy. All children with calculi were rendered stone-free based on direct visualization by complete ureteroscopy and pyeloscopy of the affected system. No complications occurred during any of the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal rigid ureteroscopy and pyeloscopy can be safely applied toward treatment of proximal ureteral and renal pelvic calculi as well as diagnostic ureteropyeloscopy in prepubertal children. The technique has several advantages compared to flexible ureteroscopy.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2004

[Ureteroscopy in the follow-up protocol for upper urinary tract urothelial tumors treated endoscopically].

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of ureteroscopy (rigid and flexible) in the follow-up protocol for transitional cell tumors treated conservatively in our department by endourological procedures, and to review the articles on this topic available in the literature. METHODS: From February 1997 to June 2003, 10 patients (12 renal units) with upper urinary tract urothelial tumor treated conservatively by endourological procedures were followed by cytology, cystoscopy, retrograde ureteropyelography, and ureteroscopy (rigid and flexible), quarterly during the first year, semi-annually during the second year, and yearly thereafter in order to detect tumor recurrence. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 31.9 months (R 14-65). Two patients died: one because of a previous metacronous bladder tumor and the other after distant progression. One patient was lost to followup. A total of 42 ureteroscopies were performed (31 flexible and 11 rigid). Flexible ureteroscopy was performed in 6 patients and rigid ureteroscopy in three; neither was feasible in one patient so that follow-up was done by cytology, cystoscopy and urography. Tumor recurrence was detected in 2 patients but ureteroscopy did not inform about tumor stage. Flexible ureteroscopy failed in another patient in which rigid ureteroscopy was feasible. Although this latter was technically easier to perform, procedure discomfort was worse. CONCLUSIONS: The follow-up of transitional cell tumors of the upper urinary tract should be very strict because of the high risk of tumor relapse. Ureteroscopy, mainly flexible, is standing out as the most effective procedure to watch these tumors.

Aged↗
PubMed1998

Secondary ureteroscopy: results and management strategy at a referral center.

PURPOSE: In an era when extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy occupies a dominant place in the treatment of urolithiasis ureteroscopy retains an important role in certain circumstances. While often a definitive procedure, ureteroscopy can be associated with potential risks and complications. The treatment of patients who have undergone a failed attempt at ureteroscopic stone retrieval or have a complication may be complex. As a tertiary care stone referral center we review our experience with performing salvage ureteroscopy following a previous unsuccessful attempt at endoscopic stone removal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 1990 and February 1996, 79 patients were referred following an unsuccessful attempt at retrograde endoscopic or basket manipulation for ureteral calculi. A retrospective review of the outcomes of these patients was conducted. Of the patients 11 presented with associated complications, which included ureteral perforation (4), intramural false passage (1) and fever or sepsis (6). Complications were managed by early establishment of urinary tract drainage by stenting or nephrostomy. Among patients without complications elective salvage ureteroscopy was performed. RESULTS: Ureteroscopy was used in 79 patients with a successful outcome (stone-free) in 75 (95%). Followup imaging with renal ultrasound or excretory urography at least 3 months after secondary ureteroscopy was available in 65 patients and showed no evidence of hydronephrosis or delayed stricture formation. CONCLUSIONS: Treating the patient who undergoes a failed attempt at ureteroscopy may be problematic and requires access to a wide array of endourological equipment. Each subsequent treatment should be individualized with consideration given to stone size, location and general health. In the presence of a ureteral injury establishment of early urinary tract drainage is essential. Following stabilization, secondary ureteroscopy can be performed yielding high stone-free rates with minimal complications.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Salvage extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy after failed distal ureteroscopy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: When intervention is necessary, controversy remains as to the best treatment modality for stones of the distal ureter. In general, ureteroscopy is favored over extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) as the treatment of choice for distal ureteral stones. Although uncommon, ureteroscopy failures have traditionally necessitated repeat ureteroscopy to retrieve retained stone fragments. We evaluated the efficacy of salvage SWL for failed primary distal ureteroscopy in the community setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From December 1989 to December 2000, 6099 patients underwent SWL with the Dornier HM4 lithotripter at our institution. We retrospectively identified 31 patients who had undergone the SWL after a failed distal ureteroscopy. RESULTS: The average stone size in these patients was 9.4 mm, the average time interval from ureteroscopy to SWL was 17.2 days, and the average number of shockwaves delivered was 2386. All patients had had stents placed after ureteroscopy. Twenty-seven patients (87%) had resolution of their stone burden after one SWL session. The remaining four patients underwent additional procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Ureteroscopy is an effective modality for the treatment of distal ureteral stones. However, when unsuccessful, a salvage procedure may be necessary. Extracorporeal lithotripsy is a less invasive procedure with comparable success rates in the distal ureter. This report suggests that salvage SWL is an appropriate option for patients in whom distal ureteroscopic stone extraction fails.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Safety and efficacy of same-session bilateral ureteroscopy.

PURPOSE: Same-session ureteroscopy for bilateral urinary calculi would potentially reduce costs and the need for a second anesthetic compared with staged procedures. We sought to establish the safety and efficacy of same-session bilateral ureteroscopy relative to procedures for staged bilateral and multiple unilateral calculi in the context of contemporary instrumentation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 626 consecutive patients underwent ureteroscopy for calculi between January 1997 and August 2001. Among these, 34 patients with bilateral calculi (11 staged and 23 treated in one sitting) and 54 patients with multiple unilateral calculi in distinct locations were included in this study. Multivariable regression was used to determine the association of patient-specific and technical factors with postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: Stone-free rates were similar in the two groups and ranged from 50% to 100% depending on stone location. Postoperative complications occurred in 6 (11%) and 3 (14%) of the patients treated for multiple unilateral and for bilateral calculi in a staged procedure, respectively, compared with 7 (29%) of those undergoing same-session bilateral ureteroscopy (P = 0.12). Logistic regression revealed that same-session bilateral ureteroscopy (odds ratio [OR] 4.0; P = 0.02) and absence of a postoperative stent (OR 1.7; P = 0.03) were associated with added morbidity. However, the cumulative risk of performing staged bilateral procedures (14% per procedure) approximated that of bilateral ureteroscopy in one sitting (29%). CONCLUSION: Bilateral ureteroscopy carries an increased risk of postoperative morbidity. The risk is proportional to the number of renal units treated and may be assumed at once (e.g., same-session) or over time (e.g., staged) as it applies to patients requiring bilateral ureteroscopy.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Symptomatic small non-obstructing lower ureteric calculi: comparison of ureteroscopy and extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the success, efficacy and complications of ureteroscopy (URS) and extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the treatment of symptomatic small non obstructing lower ureteric calculi. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This prospective non-randomised study was conducted simultaneously at two urological referral centres, included 280 patients with symptomatic small (4-10 mm) lower ureteric calculi (situated below the sacroiliac joint), with good renal function on intravenous urography. Patients were offered both the treatment options. One hundred and sixty patients chose ureteroscopy, whereas 120 patients were treated by ESWL. Standard techniques of ureteroscopy and ESWL were employed. Patients were followed-up to assess the success rates and complications of the two procedures. RESULTS: Ureteroscopy achieved complete stone clearance in one session in 95% of patients. In six patients ureteroscopy had failed initially and was later accomplished in second session improving the success rate to 98.7%. Two patients had a proximal migration of calculus that needed ESWL. Of the 120 patients treated by ESWL, 90% achieved stone free status at three months. Ureteroscopy was needed for twelve patients (10%) where ESWL failed to achieve stone clearance. There were no significant ESWL related complications. ESWL was administered on outpatient basis, while patients needed hospitalisation and anaesthesia for ureteroscopy. CONCLUSION: ESWL can be the primary mode of treatment for symptomatic small non-obstructing lower ureteric calculi as it is minimally invasive and safe. Ureteroscopy can be offered to patients who demand immediate relief or when ESWL fails.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

A comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy under intravenous sedation for the management of distal ureteric calculi.

INTRODUCTION: We have performed a study to compare shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy under intravenous sedation for the management of distal ureteric calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient tolerance, procedure times and treatment outcomes were prospectively evaluated in 110 patients undergoing 138 SWL treatments, and 172 patients undergoing ureteroscopy under intravenous sedation for the management of distal ureteric calculi. RESULTS: Men tolerated SWL better than ureteroscopy. Over 90% of women tolerated both procedures well. Procedure times were 52 minutes for SWL and 27 minutes for ureteroscopy. Treatment was successful in 72% of patients undergoing SWL, and 95% of patients undergoing ureteroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: In women with distal ureteric calculi requiring treatment, we recommend ureteroscopy under intravenous sedation as the treatment of first choice. In men the better tolerance of SWL must be weighed against the higher success rate of ureteroscopy. If both treatment modalities are available, patients with small distal ureteric calculi, in whom ureteroscopy is likely to be successful, should be informed of and offered their choice of either treatment modality.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

[Ureteroscopy--an alternative treatment in ureterolithiasis].

The authors evaluate the results of 315 ureteroscopies performed in 1991-1995 at the Urological Clinic in Brno Bohunice. 290 ureteroscopies were made on account of ureterolithiasis, diagnostic ureteroscopy was performed in 17 patients, in four instances extraction of a foreign body was involved and in four instances during ureteroscopy the stenosis of the ureter was severed. One-stage operations were successful in 226 patients (78%), in 42 patients (14%) after ureteroscopy ESWL had to be made. Ureteroscopy as a two-stage operation was performed in 12 patients (6%), five cases were resolved by open surgery because ureteroscopy failed. The authors evaluate early and late complications, none of which called for nephrectomy. The authors discuss the position of ureteroscopy in ureterolithiasis which is one of the most frequent indications.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Routine placement of ureteral stents is unnecessary after ureteroscopy for urinary calculi.

OBJECTIVES: To report a matched comparison of patients with and without stenting after ureteroscopy for calculi, including middle or proximal ureteral and renal calculi. The elimination of routine stenting after ureteroscopy would prevent stent pain, minimize the need for re-instrumentation, and reduce costs-as long as efficacy and safety are not diminished. METHODS: Of 318 patients who underwent ureteroscopy, 81 (25%) did not have a ureteral stent placed. Of those, 51 were suitable for analysis and included patients with distal ureteral (n = 22), middle or proximal ureteral (n = 11), and renal calculi (n = 18). This cohort was matched to a stented group by stone size and location. RESULTS: The preoperative characteristics of the groups were similar. A stone-free rate of 86% and 94% was achieved in the stented and nonstented groups, respectively (P = 0.32). Complications in the nonstented group were less frequent (flank pain in 3 and postoperative nausea in 1) than in the stented group (hospital visits for flank pain in 12, persistent nausea and vomiting in 1, sepsis in 1, perinephric hematoma in 1, and urinary retention in 1) (total of 4 versus 16, P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Ureteroscopy for distal ureteral stones without ureteral stent placement has been previously described. Our experience expands to include the elimination of stent placement after ureteroscopy for middle or proximal ureteral (22%) and renal (35%) calculi. Our data suggest that after ureteroscopies with short operative times and minimal ureteral trauma, ureteral stents may not be necessary, even if proximal ureteral or renal ureteroscopy has been performed.

Follow-Up Studies↗