Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Urolithiasis 3/2007

01-06-2007 | Original Paper

Clinical outcome of ureteroscopic lithotripsy for 2,129 patients with ureteral stones

Authors: Toshifumi Kurahashi, Hideaki Miyake, Nobutoshi Oka, Masashi Shinozaki, Atsushi Takenaka, Isao Hara, Masato Fujisawa

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 3/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to retrospectively analyze the clinical outcomes of ureteroscopic lithotripsy (USL) performed in patients with ureteral stones, and to investigate the factors associated with therapeutic outcomes. This study included a total of 2,129 patients with ureteral stones who underwent USL between December 1985 and March 2006 in a single institution in Japan. In this series, ultrasonic lithotripsy was primarily performed, and forceps and/or baskets were occasionally used for the removal of stones. Complete removal was defined as total clearance 1 day after the initial USL. The initial stone-free rate following a single treatment with USL was 73.3%. Of 569 patients diagnosed as having fragmentation of residual stones, additional therapy was not performed for 115 with stones likely to pass spontaneously, while the remaining 454 subsequently underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Thereafter, ureterolithotomy or percutaneous nephrolithotripsy was further added in 14. Ureteral perforation occurred in 14 patients, of whom 2 underwent nephrectomy; however, there were no other serious complications that could not be managed by conservative treatment. Whether ureteral stones were completely removed by an initial USL was significantly associated with the history of ureteral stone, severity of clinical symptoms, number of stones, localization of stones and maximal diameter of stones. Furthermore, multivariate analysis identified the severity of clinical symptoms, number of stones, localization of stones and maximal diameter of stones as independent predictors for complete removal of ureteral stones by the initial USL application. These findings suggest that USL could be a safe and effective treatment option for ureteral stones; however, other therapeutic strategies should also be considered in patients with currently identified risk factors associated with treatment failure following a single USL procedure.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Auge BK, Preminger GM (2002) Update on shock wave lithotripsy technology. Curr Opin Urol 12:287–290PubMedCrossRef Auge BK, Preminger GM (2002) Update on shock wave lithotripsy technology. Curr Opin Urol 12:287–290PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Chow GK, Streem SB (2000) Extracorporeal lithotripsy. Update on technology. Urol Clin North Am 27:315–322PubMedCrossRef Chow GK, Streem SB (2000) Extracorporeal lithotripsy. Update on technology. Urol Clin North Am 27:315–322PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Grasso M (2000) Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of ureteral and intrarenal calculi. Urol Clin North Am 27:623–631PubMedCrossRef Grasso M (2000) Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of ureteral and intrarenal calculi. Urol Clin North Am 27:623–631PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Strohmaier WL, Schubert G, Rosenkranz T, Weigl A (1999) Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Eur Urol 36:376–379PubMedCrossRef Strohmaier WL, Schubert G, Rosenkranz T, Weigl A (1999) Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Eur Urol 36:376–379PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Peschel R, Janetschek G, Bartsch G (1999) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 162:1909–1912PubMedCrossRef Peschel R, Janetschek G, Bartsch G (1999) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 162:1909–1912PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Park H, Park M, Park T (1998) Two-year experience with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy v ureteroscopic manipulation. J Endourol 12:501–504PubMedCrossRef Park H, Park M, Park T (1998) Two-year experience with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy v ureteroscopic manipulation. J Endourol 12:501–504PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, Lin CL, Chen CS (2004) Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol 172:1899–1902PubMedCrossRef Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, Lin CL, Chen CS (2004) Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol 172:1899–1902PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kupeli B, Biri H, Isen K, Onaran M, Alkibay T, Karaoglan U, BozKirli I (1998) Treatment of ureteral stones: comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endourologic alternatives. Eur Urol 34:474–479PubMedCrossRef Kupeli B, Biri H, Isen K, Onaran M, Alkibay T, Karaoglan U, BozKirli I (1998) Treatment of ureteral stones: comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endourologic alternatives. Eur Urol 34:474–479PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, Kuo R, Preminger GM, Nadler RB, Macaluso J, Monga M, Kumar U, Dushinski J, Albala DM, Wolf JS Jr, Assimos D, Fabrizio M, Munch LC, Nakada SY, Auge B, Honey J, Ogan K, Pattaras J, McDougall EM, Averch TD, Turk T, Pietrow P, Watkins S (2005) Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 173:2005–2009PubMedCrossRef Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, Kuo R, Preminger GM, Nadler RB, Macaluso J, Monga M, Kumar U, Dushinski J, Albala DM, Wolf JS Jr, Assimos D, Fabrizio M, Munch LC, Nakada SY, Auge B, Honey J, Ogan K, Pattaras J, McDougall EM, Averch TD, Turk T, Pietrow P, Watkins S (2005) Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 173:2005–2009PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Gur U, Lifshitz DA, Lask D, Livne PM (2006) Ureteral ultrasonic lithotripsy revisited: a neglected tool? J Endourol 18:137–140CrossRef Gur U, Lifshitz DA, Lask D, Livne PM (2006) Ureteral ultrasonic lithotripsy revisited: a neglected tool? J Endourol 18:137–140CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sofer M, Watterson JD, Wollin TA, Nott L, Razvi H, Denstedt JD (2002) Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi in 598 patients. J Urol 167:31–34PubMedCrossRef Sofer M, Watterson JD, Wollin TA, Nott L, Razvi H, Denstedt JD (2002) Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi in 598 patients. J Urol 167:31–34PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, Lin CL, Chen CS (2004) Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones (2004). J Urol 172:1899–1902PubMedCrossRef Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, Lin CL, Chen CS (2004) Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones (2004). J Urol 172:1899–1902PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Clinical outcome of ureteroscopic lithotripsy for 2,129 patients with ureteral stones
Authors
Toshifumi Kurahashi
Hideaki Miyake
Nobutoshi Oka
Masashi Shinozaki
Atsushi Takenaka
Isao Hara
Masato Fujisawa
Publication date
01-06-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Urolithiasis / Issue 3/2007
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-007-0095-3

Other articles of this Issue 3/2007

Urolithiasis 3/2007 Go to the issue