Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2017 | Original Article

Characteristics and outcomes of ureteroscopic treatment in 2650 patients with impacted ureteral stones

Authors: Jaap D. Legemate, Nienke J. Wijnstok, Tadashi Matsuda, Willem Strijbos, Tibet Erdogru, Beat Roth, Hidefumi Kinoshita, Judith Palacios-Ramos, Roberto M. Scarpa, Jean J. de la Rosette

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 10/2017

Abstract

Purpose

To describe stone-free rates and complications of ureteroscopic treatment for impacted compared with non-impacted ureteral stones and evaluate predictive variables for impaction.

Methods

The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society prospectively collected 1 consecutive year of data from 114 centers worldwide. Patients eligible for inclusion were patients treated with ureteroscopy for ureteral stones. Patient characteristics, treatment details, and outcomes were compared with regard to stone impaction. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore predictive variables for ureteral stone impaction and to analyse the effect of impaction on outcomes.

Results

Of the 8543 treated patients, 2650 (31%) had impacted and 5893 (69%) non-impacted stones. The stone-free rate was 87.1% for impacted stones, which is lower compared with 92.7% for non-impacted stones (p < 0.001). Intra-operative complication rates were higher for impacted stones (7.9 versus 3.0%, p < 0.001). Significantly higher ureteral perforation- and avulsion rates were reported in the impacted stone group compared with the non-impacted stone group. No association between stone impaction and post-operative complications could be shown. Female gender, ASA-score >1, prior stone treatment, positive pre-operative urine culture, and larger stones showed to be predictive variables for stone impaction.

Conclusions

Ureteroscopic treatment for impacted stones is associated with lower stone-free rates and higher intra-operative complication rates compared with treatment for non-impacted stones. The predictive variables for the presence of stone impaction may contribute to the identification of stone impaction during the diagnostic process. Moreover, identification of stone impaction may aid the selection of the optimal treatment modality.

Available only for authorised users

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

Seitz C, Tanovic E, Kikic Z, Fajkovic H (2007) Impact of stone size, location, composition, impaction, and hydronephrosis on the efficacy of holmium: YAG-laser ureterolithotripsy. Eur Urol 52(6):1751–1759. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.04.029 CrossRefPubMed

Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A (2015) Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Downloaded on 30-1-2017

Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller N (2016) American Urological Association (AUA) Guideline SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF STONES: American Urological Association Surgical Management, pp 1–50

Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Türk C, Knoll T, Sarica K (2015) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69:475–482. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041 CrossRefPubMed

de la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P et al (2014) The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol 28(2):131–139. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0436 CrossRefPubMed

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zerbib M, Steg A, Belas M, Flam T, Debre B (1990) Laser lithotripsy of ureteral calculi: initial experience with a new pulsed dye laser. J Lithotr Stone Dis 2(1):39–41PubMed

Binbay M, Tepeler A, Singh A et al (2011) Evaluation of pneumatic versus holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted ureteral stones. Int Urol Nephrol 43(4):989–995. doi:10.1007/s11255-011-9951-8 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Sun X, Xia S, Lu J, Liu H, Han B, Li W (2008) Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. J Endourol 22(5):913–918. doi:10.1089/end.2007.0230 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Moufid K, Adermouch L, Amine M, Lezrek M, Touiti D, Abbaka N (2013) Large impacted upper ureteral calculi: a comparative study between retrograde ureterolithotripsy and percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy in the modified lateral position. Urol Ann 5(3):140. doi:10.4103/0974-7796.115729 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Li H, Na W, Li H et al (2013) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus ureteroscopic lithotomy for large (>15 mm) impacted upper ureteral stones in different locations: is the upper border of the fourth lumbar vertebra a good indication for choice of management method? J Endourol 27(9):1120–1125. doi:10.1089/end.2012.0535 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Yang Z, Song L, Xie D et al (2012) Comparative study of outcome in treating upper ureteral impacted stones using minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy with aid of patented system or transurethral ureteroscopy. Urology 80(6):1192–1197. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.08.045 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Brito AH, Mitre AI, Srougi M (2006) Ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy of impacted ureteral calculi. Int Braz J Urol 32(3):295–299CrossRefPubMed

15.

Qi S, Li Y, Liu X et al (2014) Clinical efficacy, safety, and costs of percutaneous occlusive balloon catheter-assisted ureteroscopic lithotripsy for large impacted proximal ureteral calculi: a prospective, randomized study. J Endourol 28(9):1064–1070. doi:10.1089/end.2014.0167 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Li L, Pan Y, Weng Z, Bao W, Yu Z, Wang F (2015) A prospective randomized trial comparing pneumatic lithotripsy and holmium laser for management of middle and distal ureteral calculi. J Endourol 29(8):883–887. doi:10.1089/end.2014.0856 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Elganainy E, Hameed DA, Elgammal M, Abd-Elsayed AA, Shalaby M (2009) Experience with impacted upper ureteral stones; should we abandon using semirigid ureteroscopes and pneumatic lithoclast? Int Arch Med 2(1):13. doi:10.1186/1755-7682-2-13 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Degirmenci T, Gunlusoy B, Kozacioglu Z et al (2012) Outcomes of ureteroscopy for the management of impacted ureteral calculi with different localizations. Urology 80(4):811–815. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.05.007 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG et al (2007) Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 178(6):2418–2434. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.107 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Minei S, Yamazaki T, Kaya H, Okada K, Yamaguchi K (1999) Characterization of ureteral lesions associated with impacted stones. Int J Urol 6:281–285CrossRefPubMed

21.

Sarica K, Kafkasli A, Yazici Ö et al (2014) Ureteral wall thickness at the impacted ureteral stone site: a critical predictor for success rates after SWL. Urolithiasis 43(1):83–88. doi:10.1007/s00240-014-0724-6 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Skolarikos A, Alivizatos G, de la Rosette J (2006) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 25 years later: complications and their prevention. Eur Urol 50(5):981–990. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.01.045 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Sarica K, Eryildirim B, Sahin C, Sabuncu K, Cetinel C, Narter F (2016) Impaction of ureteral stones into the ureteral wall: Is it possible to predict? Urolithiasis 44(4):371–376. doi:10.1007/s00240-015-0850-9 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Fam XI, Singam P, Chee Kong Ho C et al (2015) Ureteral stricture formation after ureteroscope treatment of impacted calculi: a prospective study. Korean J Urol 56(1):63–67. doi:10.4111/kju.2015.56.1.63 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Roberts WW, Cadeddu JA, Micali S, Kavoussi LR, Moore RG (1998) Ureteral stricture formation after removal of impacted calculi. J Urol 159(3):723–726. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63711-X CrossRefPubMed

26.

Srougi V, Padovani GP, Marchini GS, Vicentini FC, Mazzucchi E, Srougi M (2015) Outcomes of surgical treatment of ureteral strictures after laser ureterolithotripsy for impacted stones. Can J Urol 22(6):7788–7793

27.

Mugiya S, Ito T, Maruyama S, Hadano S NH (2004) Endoscopic features of impacted ureteral stones. J Urol 171(1):89–91. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000100960.08768.81 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Goel R, Aron M, Kesarwani PK, Dogra PN, Hemal AK, Gupta NP (2005) Percutaneous antegrade removal of impacted upper-ureteral calculi: still the treatment of choice in developing countries. J Endourol 19(1):54–57. doi:10.1089/end.2005.19.54 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Characteristics and outcomes of ureteroscopic treatment in 2650 patients with impacted ureteral stones
Authors: Jaap D. Legemate
Nienke J. Wijnstok
Tadashi Matsuda
Willem Strijbos
Tibet Erdogru
Beat Roth
Hidefumi Kinoshita
Judith Palacios-Ramos
Roberto M. Scarpa
Jean J. de la Rosette
Publication date: 01-10-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 10/2017
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2028-2

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Characteristics and outcomes of ureteroscopic treatment in 2650 patients with impacted ureteral stones

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2017

Development of novel nomograms to predict renal functional outcomes after laparoscopic adrenalectomy in patients with primary aldosteronism

Novel AR-V7 detection in whole blood samples in patients with prostate cancer: not as simple as it seems

Minimally invasive vs open nephrectomy in the modern era: does approach matter?

Irreversible electroporation of small renal masses: suboptimal oncologic efficacy in an early series

Association of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) volume and prostate cancer: consecutive data from an academic institution in respect to the current scientific view

Transurethral endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP)