Search

Introduction: Impacted stones are those that remain unchanged in the same location for at least 2 months., Materials and Methods: We evaluated 42 patients with impacted ureteral stones, and followed them for two and a half years to check for long-term results. The calculi location included all three segments of the ureter (proximal, mid and distal). Patients' age ranged from 22 to 83 years (mean 52.5 years). Primarily, patients were manipulated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in situ, or following stenting. If the result was not satisfactory, then we proceeded to retrograde ureteroscopy and ureterolithotripsy. Open ureterolithotomy was our final choice., Results: Thirty-six of the 42 patients (85.7%) were stone-free without the need of an open procedure. Follow-up period ranged from 10 up to 40 months, with a median period of 30 months and was achieved in 30 patients (71.4%). Stone recurrence was noted in 4 cases, while hydronephrosis without evidence of stone presence in 2., Conclusions: The initial approach for the treatment of impacted lithiasis should be attempted by ESWL. If this fails, alternative therapeutic solutions such as endoscopy can result in removal of the stone., (Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel)

Background and Purpose: During recent years, survival of patients with invasive bladder cancer has been improved by early diagnosis and radical treatment. Urinary lithiasis is not rare in patients who have been submitted to radical cystectomy and urinary diversion. We have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of SWL for these patients., Patients and Methods: We studied 11 patients who presented to our lithotripsy department suffering from urinary lithiasis after radical cystectomy. They were all cancer free at the time of treatment, and all underwent SWL on the Dornier HM-3 lithotripter as a first-line treatment. The mean stone burden was 1.85 cm(2), and the stone-to-patient ratio was 1:1., Results: The stone-free rate 1 month after SWL was 63.7%. Patients who were not stone free underwent a second SWL, and the stone-free rate after the second SWL session was 81.8%. We performed percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in one patient after the second SWL session because of the large stone burden remaining (3.2 cm(2)). The remaining patient was submitted to ureterolithotomy., Conclusion: Application of SWL gives very good results in the treatment of urinary lithiasis in patients with a urinary diversion. Indeed, the results are equivalent to those achieved in patients without urinary diversion.

Impacted stones typically make it difficult to perform ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), so it is useful to preoperatively predict such impaction. We focused on CT attenuation values of the ureter above and below the stone ('HU above' and 'HU below') and calculated their ratio (HAB ratio; HU above/HU below ratio). The aim was to investigate whether HAB ratio could predict impacted stones preoperatively. Between 2011 and 2019, 171 patients from our hospital that had URSL for ureteral stones with pretreatment non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) were retrospectively identified. Ureteral wall thickness (UWT), ureteral wall volume (UWV) and HAB ratio ('HU above' divided by 'HU below') were recorded. Impacted stones were defined as fixed stones that did not move by means of ureteroscopic manipulation or water pressure. Of the 171 procedures, 46 (27%) involved patients with impacted stones. Comparing patient characteristics and stone parameters according to impaction status, factors with significant difference included grade of hydronephrosis, UWT, and HAB ratio (all P < 0.01). Multivariate analysis indicated that significant independent predictors of impacted stones were thicker UWT and lower HAB ratio (all P < 0.01). HAB ratio was a significant preoperative predictor of stone impaction in patients undergoing URSL for ureteral stones. HAB ratio may be informative for selecting the treatment and preoperative preparations., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Treatment of urolithiasis, a benign disease, requires high efficacy and safety. Endoscopic treatment of impacted ureteral stones remains a challenging procedure for urologists, despite recent remarkable advances in surgical technology in treatment of urolithiasis. The success rate of endoscopic treatment in patients with impacted stones is reported to be lower than that in patients with nonimpacted stones. Moreover, the presence of stone impaction is associated with high rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications. The best management for patients with impacted ureteral stones should therefore be devised based on the latest knowledge and techniques. The present review focuses on the preoperative prediction of stone impaction, the safest and most effective endoscopic surgical procedures, and the most appropriate management for postoperative ureteral strictures. We overview comprehensive endoscopic management for impacted ureteral stones based on literature review and expert opinions., (© 2022 The Japanese Urological Association.)

Background: To investigate the relationship between ureteral wall thickness (UWT) and other variables of patients who underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the primary treatment of the ureteral stone above the iliac crest level., Material and Methods: A total of 147 patients aged 18 years and older, who underwent SWL in our clinic between December 2016 and December 2019 for the treatment of ureteral stones above the iliac crest level and had non-contrast enhanced abdominal computed tomography scans before the procedure were included in the clinical study. The results were evaluated at 3 months after SWL. The absence of residual fragments was considered as stone-free status, and the existence of any size residual fragment was considered as treatment failure., Results: In our study, the mean age of the patients was 42.4 ± 12.8 years, and the stone-free rate was 92.5%. The median transverse stone size was 7.5 mm (min 2.8-max 15), and the median UWT was 4.2 mm (1-8.7). In the multivariate analysis, UWT (P = .002) and multiple stone presence (P = .027) were found to be independent factors affecting stone-free status. In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the optimal threshold value for UWT was determined as 5.25 mm., Conclusions: We found that UWT was the most important independent variable associated with increased failure in SWL treatment. The presence of multiple stones was another independent factor that increased the failure rates. Using SWL technology through experience accumulated with the mechanical hardware of the machine, we can select patients who are more suitable for this treatment and improve treatment outcomes., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LPU) for the treatment of large proximal ureteric stone., Methods: A retrospective multicenter analysis for patients with solitary impacted proximal ureteric stone ≥15 mm who underwent LPU from 2016 to 2019 was performed. Primary outcome was to estimate the stone-free rate (SFR). SFR was defined as absence of residual stones on postoperative computed tomography scan. Secondary outcome was to assess the perioperative outcomes, as well as to review literature data of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing LPU to other treatment options., Results: Forty-four patients were included in our study. Mean stone size was 22.9 ± 5.8 mm and median follow-up was 14 months. Three patients had previous abdominal surgery, one patient had severe degree of scoliosis and six patients failed primary therapy. All stones were extracted successfully (SFR = 100%) without need of auxiliary treatments. Mean operative time and estimated blood loss were 86.6 ± 14.1 minutes. and 11.9 ± 14.7 mL, respectively. No intraoperative complications or conversion to open surgery were reported. No major postoperative complications (≥grade 3) were reported. Mean length of hospital stay was 2 ± 0.8 days., Conclusions: For treatment of large ureteric stones, our study showed that LPU achieves 100% stone-free status. When performed by well-trained laparoscopic surgeons, it is safe and has no major perioperative complications. According to our results and literature data, when counseling patients with large impacted proximal ureteral stones, LPU should be advised as the procedure that has the higher SFR, lower auxiliary treatments, and comparable complication rates to other treatments., (© 2020 Asia Endosurgery Task Force and Japan Society of Endoscopic Surgery and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of different treatment options for the management of proximal impacted ureteral stones (PIUS)., Methods: A systematic literature search using Pubmed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library was conducted to obtain studies concerning different managements for PIUS up to Jan 2018. Summary odds ratios (ORs), standard mean differences (SMDs) or weighted mean differences with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare the efficacy and safety of all included treatment methods, registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42018092745., Results: A total of 15 comparative studies with 1780 patients were included. Meta-analyses of final stone-free rate (SFR) favored percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) over ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) (OR 10.35; 95% CI 5.26-20.35; P < 0.00001), laparoscopic ureterolithotomy over URL (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.05-0.25; P < 0.00001) and URL over extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.28-0.77; P = 0.003). As to complications, PCNL had a significantly higher blood transfusion rate (OR 7.47; 95% CI 1.3-42.85; P = 0.02) and a lower ureteral injury rate (OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04-0.52; P = 0.003) compared with URL. It also shared a significantly lower stone-retropulsion rate (OR 0.03; 95% CI 0.01-0.15; P < 0.0001) and higher treatment costs (SMD = 2.71; 95% CI 0.71-4.70; P = 0.008) than URL., Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggested that PCNL might be the best option for PIUS owing to its higher successful rate. Complications such as hemorrhage could be decreased by the application on mini-PCNL.