Abstract
Objective
To compare the results of ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) with retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) as two minimally invasive techniques in the management of proximal ureteral stones larger than 12 mm.
Patients and methods
From January 2009 to October 2013, patients with impacted unilateral upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm were enrolled including 182 males and 93 females with a medium age of 40 years (22–72 years). Patients were randomized to receive URSL (139 cases) with semirigid ureteroscope or RPLU (136 cases).
Results
Stone size was similar in RPLU and URSL groups (13.8 ± 1.9 vs 13.6 ± 1.4 mm, P = 0.312). Operating time and hospitalizing days in URSL group were significantly shorter than those in RPLU group (P < 0.001), whereas stone clearance rate was significantly higher in RPLU group (97.1 vs 89.9 %, P = 0.017). Ureteral strictures happened higher in URSL group (5 patients, 3.6 %) than RPLU group (2 patients, 1.5 %) with no statistical significance, while the strictures requiring surgical intervention were significantly higher in URSL group (4 cases) (2.9 vs 0 %, P = 0.046).
Conclusion
RPLU could provide better stone clearance rate than semirigid URSL for upper ureteral impacted stones larger than 12 mm. It may also reduce the chance of surgical intervention for postoperative ureteral stricture.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Niţă G, Mirciulescu V, Cauni V (2006) Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol 20:179–185
Leone NT, Garcia-Roig M, Bagley DH (2010) Changing trends in the use of ureteroscopic instruments from 1996 to 2008. J Endourol 24:361–365
Castro EP, Osther PJ, Jinga V, Razvi H, Stravodimos KG, Parikh K, Kural AR, de la Rosette JJ, CROES Ureteroscopy Global Study Group (2014) Differences in ureteroscopic stone treatment and outcomes for distal, mid-, proximal, or multiple ureteral locations: the clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study. Eur Urol 66(1):102–109
Hruza M, Schulze M, Teber D, Gözen AS, Rassweiler JJ (2009) Laparoscopic techniques for removal of renal and ureteral calculi. J Endourol 23:1713–1718
Skolarikos A, Papatsoris AG, Albanis S, Assimos D (2010) Laparoscopic urinary stone surgery: an updated evidence-based review. Urol Res 38:337–344
Goel R, Aron M, Kesarwani PK, Dogra PN, Hemal AK, Gupta NP (2005) Percutaneous antegrade removal of impacted upperureteral calculi: still the treatment of choice in developing countries. J Endourol 19:54–57
Mugiya S, Nagata M, Un-No T, Takayama T, Suzuki K, Fujita K (2000) Endoscopic management of impacted ureteral stones using a small caliber ureteroscope and a laser lithotriptor. J Urol 164:329–331
de la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P, Keeley F, Matsuda T, Pearle M, Preminger G, Traxer O, CROES URS Study Group (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
Mandal S, Goel A, Singh MK et al (2012) Clavien classification of semirigid ureteroscopy complications: a prospective study. Urology 80:995–1001
Fang YQ, Qiu JG, Wang DJ, Zhan HL, Situ J (2012) Comparative study on ureteroscopic lithotripsy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of unilateral upper ureteral stones. Acta Cir Bras 27:266–270
Desai MR, Patel SB, Desai MM, Kukreja R, Sabnis RB, Desai RM, Patel SH (2002) The Dretler stone cone: a device to prevent ureteral stone migration—the initial clinical experience. J Urol 167:1985–1988
Ding H, Wang Z, Du W, Zhang H (2012) NTrap in prevention of stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis. J Endourol 26:130–134
El-Feel A, Abouel-Fettouh H, Abdel-Hakim AM (2007) Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy. J Endourol 21:50–54
Ozturk MD, Sener NC, Goktug HN, Gucuk A, Nalbant I, Imamoglu MA (2013) The comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stones. Can Urol Assoc J 7:E673–E676
Wen X, Liu X, Huang H, Wu J, Huang W, Cai S, Li X, Ye C, Zhu B, Cai Y, Gao X (2012) Retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site ureterolithotomy: a comparison with conventional laparoscopic surgery. J Endourol 26:366–371
Singh V, Sinha RJ, Gupta DK, Kumar M, Akhtar A (2013) Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: a prospective randomized comparison study. J Urol 189:940–945
Neto ACL, Korkes F, Silva JL 2nd, Amarante RD, Mattos MH, Tobias-Machado M, Pompeo AC (2012) Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy. J Urol 187:164–168
Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Jha SK, Singh H (2014) A prospective randomized comparison between laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones >2 cm: a single-center experience. J Endourol. [Epub ahead of print]
Wang Y, Hou J, Wen D, OuYang J, Meng J, Zhuang H (2010) Comparative analysis of upper ureteral stones (>15 mm) treated with retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy and ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy. Int Urol Nephrol 42:897–901
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.81270846).
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shao, Y., Wang, Dw., Lu, Gl. et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm. World J Urol 33, 1841–1845 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1545-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1545-0