This article compiles findings from various studies comparing different treatment methods for large (≥15 mm) impacted proximal ureteric stones. The techniques investigated include laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, retrograde flexible ureteroscopy, and mini-percutaneous antegrade flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy.
The analysis includes a multitude of studies, both prospective and retrospective, each evaluating the efficacy and safety of these minimally invasive techniques. Specific studies referenced include those by Kadyan et al. (2016), Muslumanoglu et al. (2006), Liu et al. (2013), and several others focusing on different aspects and comparative analyses of the procedures. These studies provide data on stone-free rates, complication rates, and other relevant clinical outcomes.
The article does not offer a singular definitive conclusion about the best treatment, but rather presents a comprehensive overview of existing research on the comparative effectiveness of different minimally invasive surgical approaches for managing large proximal ureteric stones. This serves as a resource for clinicians to weigh different treatment options based on the available evidence.
Kadyan B, Sabale V, Mane D, Satav V, Mulay A, Thakur N et al (2016) Large proximal ureteral stones: ideal treatment modality? Urol Ann 8:189–192. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.157963
Muslumanoglu AY, Karadag MA, Tefekli AH, Altunrende F, Tok A, Berberoglu Y (2006) When is open ureterolithotomy indicated for the treatment of ureteral stones? Int J Urol 13:1385–1388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01585.x
Liu Y, Zhou Z, Xia A, Dai H, Guo L, Zheng J (2013) Clinical observation of different minimally invasive surgeries for the treatment of impacted upper ureteral calculi. Pak J Med Sci 29:1358–1362. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.296.3910
Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Thomas K (2020) Guidelines on Urolithiasis. European Association of Urology; https://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/#3
Kesler SS, Pierre SA, Brison DI, Preminger GM, Munver R (2008) Use of the escape nitinol stone retrieval basket facilitates fragmentation and extraction of ureteral and renal calculi: a pilot study. J Endourol 22(6):1213–1217. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0070
Elashry OM, Tawfik AM (2012) Preventing stone retropulsion during intracorporeal lithotripsy. Nat Rev Urol 9(12):691–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2012.204
Chow GK, Patterson DE, Blute ML (2003) Ureteroscopy: effect of technology and technique on clinical practice. J Urol 170:99–102. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000070883.44091.24
Elgebaly O, Abdeldayem H, Idris F, Elrifai A, Fahmy A (2020) Antegrade mini-percutaneous flexible ureteroscopy versus retrograde ureteroscopy for treating impacted proximal ureteric stones of 1–2 cm: a prospective randomised study. Arab J Urol 18(3):176–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2020.1769385
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Preminger GM, Tiselius H-G, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck C, Gallucci M et al (2007) Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 178(6):2418–2434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.107
Kijvikai K, Haleblian GE, Preminger GM, de la Rosette J (2007) Shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi: an old discussion revisited. J Urol 178(4):1157–1163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.132
Mousavi Bahar SH, Amirhassani S, Nouralizadeh A, ZerafatJou N, Rasiuli J (2019) Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Laparoscopy in the management of large proximal Ureteral stones: the experience of two different settings. Urol J 21:448–452. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v0i0.4538
Güler Y, Erbin A (2021) Comparative evaluation of retrograde intrarenal surgery, antegrade ureterorenoscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm. Cent Eur J Urol 74(1):57–59. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2021.0174.R1
Mohey A, Abdelfattah AA, Mohammed AE, Marzouk A, El-Dakhakhny AS et al (2023) Comparative study between antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and reterograde intrarenal surgery in the management of impacted upper ureteric stones 1.5 cm or larger. World J Urol 41:3731–3736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04672-w
Wang Y, Zhong B, Yang X, Wang G, Hou P, Meng J (2017) Comparison of the efficacy and safety of URSL, RPLU, and MPCNL for treatment of large upper impacted ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Urol 17(1):50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0236-0
Bhaskar K, Somani M, Desai O, Traxer S Lahme (2014) Stone-free rate (SFR): a new proposal for defining levels of SFR. Urolithiasis Apr 42(2):95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0630-3
Basiri A, Simforoosh N, Ziaee A, Shayaninasab H, Moghaddam SMMH, Zare S (2008) Retrograde, Antegrade, and laparoscopic approaches for the management of large, proximal ureteral stones: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol 22(12):2677–2680. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0095
Lai S, Jiao B, Diao T, Seery S, Hu M, Wang M et al (2020) Optimal management of large proximal ureteral stones (> 10 mm): a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 80:205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.06.025
Kallidonis P, Ntasiotis P, Knoll T, Sarica K, Papatsoris A, Somani BK et al (2017) Minimally invasive surgical ureterolithotomy versus ureteroscopic lithotripsy for large ureteric stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur Urol Focus 3:554–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.006
Sharma G, Pareek T, Tyagi S, Kaundal P, Yadav AK, Thummala Y et al (2021) Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):11811. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91364-3
Wang Y, Chang X, Li J, Han Z (2020) Efficacy and safety of various surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stone ≥ 10 mm: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int Braz J Urol 46(6):902–926. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2019.0550
Skip the extension — just come straight here.
We’ve built a fast, permanent tool you can bookmark and use anytime.
Go To Paywall Unblock Tool