Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does stone dimension affect the effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To investigate whether stone dimension is a restrictive factor for ureterorenoscopic procedures.

Materials and methods

A group of 416 patients who had undergone ureterorenoscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS-PL) for lower ureteral stones between January 1999 and June 2006 in our clinic had been evaluated retrospectively. Two hundred and seventy (270, 64.9%) patients were men and 146 (35.1%) were women. The mean age of the patients was 36.61 (±12.43) years. Patients were grouped according to stone dimension; 193 patients with stones smaller than 1 cm being group 1 and 223 patients with stones ≥1 cm in dimension being group 2. Stone-free rate, operative time and rate of complications of the groups were compared. Pearson’s correlation test, χ2 test, Fischer’s exact test and Student’s t-test were used for the statistical analysis. The p value was accepted as being meaningful if p < 0.05.

Results

For group 1, the mean operative time was 39.19 (±18.33) min. Proximal stone migration in five and false passage formation in three patients was observed. Three patients were stone-free after a second session of URS-PL. The cumulative stone-free rate was 97.4% (188/193). For group 2, the mean operative time was 48.5 (±11.31) min. About 208 (93.27%) patients were stone-free after the first session and an additional eight patients became stone-free after the second session of URS-PL. False passage, ureteral perforation, ureteral avulsion and stricture were observed in four, six, one and one patients, respectively. No proximal stone migration was observed. The cumulative stone-free rate was 96.86% (216/223).

Conclusions

The effectiveness of ureterorenoscopy (URS) in the treatment of distal ureteral stones was independent of stone dimension. However, the operative time was longer and the rate of perforation was higher in stones with a diameter ≥1 cm. On the other hand, the migration rate was higher in stones <1 cm in diameter. Generally speaking, there was no meaningful effect of stone dimension on complication rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Miller K, Bubeck JR, Hautmann R (1986) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of distal ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 12(5):305–307

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Segura JW (1993) Ureteroscopy for lower ureteral stones. Urology 42(4):356–357

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Blute ML, Segura JW, Patterson DE (1988) Ureteroscopy. J Urol 139(3):510–512

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lingeman JE, Sonda LP, Kahnoski RJ et al (1986) Ureteral stone management: emerging concepts. J Urol 135(6):1172–1174

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Green DF, Lytton B (1985) Early experience with direct vision electrohydraulic lithotripsy of ureteral calculi. J Urol 133(5):767–770

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Papadoukakis S, Stolzenburg J-U, Truss MC (2006) Treatment strategies of ureteral stones. Eur Urol EAU–EBU Update Ser 4:184–190

    Google Scholar 

  7. Küpeli B, Biri H, Isen K et al (1998) Treatment of ureteral stones: comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endourologic alternatives. Eur Urol 34(6):474–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Turk TMT, Jenkins AD, Bagley DH (1999) A comparison of ureteroscopy to in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol 161(1):45–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Eden CG, Mark IR, Gupta RR et al (1998) Intracorporeal or extracorporeal lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi? Effect of stone size and multiplicity on success rates. J Endourol 12(4):307–312

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Anderson KR, Keetch DW, Albala DM et al (1994) Optimal therapy for the distal ureteral stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy. J Urol 152(1):62–65

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Park H, Park M, Park T (1998) Two-year experience with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic manipulation. J Endourol 12(6):501–504

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hautmann S, Friedrich MG, Fernandez S et al (2004) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopy for the removal of small distal ureteral stones. Urol Int 73(3):238–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chang C-P, Huang S-H, Tai H-L et al (2001) Optimal treatment for distal ureteral calculi: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy. J Endourol 15(6):563–566

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pearle MS, Nadler R, Bercowsky E et al (2001) Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol 166(4):1255–1260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sözen S, Küpeli B, Tunç L, Şenocak Ç, Alkibay T (2003) Management of ureteral stones with pneumatic lithotripsy: report of 500 patients. J Endourol 17(9):721–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Morgentaler A, Bridge SS, Dretler SP (1990) Management of the impacted ureteral calculus. J Urol 143(2):263–266

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mueller SC, Wilbert D, Thueroff JW, Alken P (1986) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones: clinical experience and experimental findings. J Urol 135(4):831–834

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Strohmaier WL, Schubert G, Resekranz T, Weigl A (1999) Comparison of extracorpereal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Eur Urol 36(5):376–379

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Peschel R, Janetschek G, Bartsch G (1999) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 162:1909–1912

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hendirikx AJM, Strijbos WE, de Knijff DW et al (1999) Treatment for extended-mid and distal ureteral stones: SWL or ureteroscopy? Results of a multicenter study. J Endourol 13(10):727–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Andankar MG, Maheshwari PN, Saple AL, Mehta V, Varshney A, Bansal B (2001) Symptomatic small non-obstructing lower ureteric calculi: comparison of ureteroscopy and extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Postgrad Med 47(3):177–180

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zeng G-Q, Zhong W-D, Cai Y-B et al (2002) Extracorporeal shock-wave versus pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy in treatment of lower ureteral calculi. Asian J Androl 4(4):303–305

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hollenbeck BK, Schuster TG, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS Jr (2001) Comparison of outcomes of ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi located above and below the pelvic brim. Urology 58(3):351–356

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Martin TV, Sosa RE (1998) Shock wave lithotripsy. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Jr, Wein AJ (eds) Campbell’s urology, vol 3, 7th edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, p 2742

    Google Scholar 

  25. Anagnostou T, Tolley D (2004) Management of ureteric stones. Eur Urol 45(6):714–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Spirnak JP, Resnik IM (1990) Ureteroscopy, Chap 15: urolithiazis, pp 253–276

  27. Stackl W, Marberger M (1986) Late sequelae of the management of ureteral calculi with the ureterorenoscope. J Urol 136(2):386–389

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmeller N, Schuller J, Knipper A, Hofstetter A. Behandlung von harnleitersteinen ohne Schnittoperatidnen Ver.dt Ges Urol 38, Tagung Würzburg Springer Verlag Berlin, pp 324–325

  29. Ceylan K, Sünbül O, Şahin A, Güneş M (2005) Ureteroscopic treatment of ureteral lithiasis with pneumatic lithotripsy: analysis of 287 procedures in a public hospital. Urol Res 33(6):422–425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fernandez De la Maza S, Noldus J, Huland H (1999) Ureterorenoscopy (URS) in treatment of ureteral calculi. I. Safety and effectiveness of URS as auxiliary treatment after ESWL. Urol A 38(2):128–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schuster TG, Hollenbeck BK, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS Jr (2001) Complications of ureteroscopy: analysis of predictive factors. J Urol 166(2):538–540

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Bakirköy Training and Research Hospital, Gül D-5 Blok D:35, Bahçeşehir, Istanbul, 34538, Turkey

    Volkan Tuğcu, Ali İhsan Taşcı, Emin Özbek, Bekir Aras, Levent Verim & Levent Gürkan

Authors
  1. Volkan Tuğcu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali İhsan Taşcı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emin Özbek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bekir Aras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Levent Verim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Levent Gürkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Volkan Tuğcu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tuğcu, V., Taşcı, A.İ., Özbek, E. et al. Does stone dimension affect the effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones?. Int Urol Nephrol 40, 269–275 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-007-9278-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-007-9278-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation