Abstract
Purpose
Patients presenting with multiple same-sided ureteric stones (MSSUS) are a unique population with nuanced prognostic and treatment considerations, which have yet to be characterized in the literature. Therefore, our purpose was to examine outcomes of patients with MSSUS vs those with single ureteric stones (SUS).
Methods
A retrospective review of prospectively collected patients included adults (> 18yo) with \(\ge \) 2 ipsilateral ureteral stones without prior treatment for their current stone burden. A historical comparison group was used as a control population. Univariate logistic regression analyses and descriptive statistics were performed with SPSS® 20.0 (p < 0.05).
Results
Seventy-nine MSSUS patients were compared to 101 SUS patients. MSSUS patients had 2.21 \(\pm \) 0.66 ureteric stones and had significantly smaller lead stones (MSSUS 6.4 mm vs SUS 7.2 mm, p = 0.03). MSSUS patients were more likely to have had prior stones (66 vs 42%) and 5.9 times more likely to have had prior stone procedures. Conservative management was successful in 30% MSSUS vs 19% SUS (p = 0.073), and there were no differences in resolution time (p = 0.44). For patients proceeding to intervention, (MSSUS n = 52, SUS n = 78), ureteroscopy was performed on 58% MSSUS vs 51% SUS patients (p = 0.302), and shockwave lithotripsy in 10% MSSUS vs 26% SUS (p = 0.01). MSSUS were more likely to spontaneously pass a stone prior to planned intervention (OR = 41.1; 95% CI = 12.0–140.7; p = 0.0001).
Conclusion
MSSUS patients are more likely recurrent stone formers with extensive stone histories and current stone burdens. Conservative management appears as successful between groups, with no difference in resolution time. When employed, ureteroscopy outcomes do not different between cohorts.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
All data comply with field standards.
References
Argyropoulos AN, Tolley DA (2010) SWL is more cost-effective than ureteroscopy and Holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for ureteric stones: a comparative analysis for a tertiary referral centre. Br J Med Surg Urol 3(2):65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjmsu.2010.01.002
Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM Jr, Curhan GC (2003) Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int 63(5):1817–1823. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00917.x
Coll DM, Varanelli MJ, Smith RC (2002) Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT. Am J Roentgenol 178(1):101–103
Aboumarzouk OM, Kata SG, Keeley FX, Nabi G (2011) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006029.pub3
Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, Byrne TW, Lingeman JE (2012) Treatment of ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Urol 188(1):130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2569
Assmus MA, De S, Schuler TD, Bochinski D, Wollin TA (2017) The “Acute” stone clinic effect: improving healthcare delivery by reorganizing clinical resources. J Endourol 31(10):1096–1100. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0332
Bayley C, Wollin T, De S, Schuler T (2020) PD14-09 Clinical outcomes of the small acute ureteral stone (saus) protocol at an ambulatory urology clinic. J Urol 203(Supplement 4):e275–e275. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000848.09
Castro PE et al (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.011
Funding
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All above authors have made significant contributions to this work. Dr. SD contributed to the study concept and design, while data acquisition was done by Dr. MA and MM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MM which had commentary from Drs. CL, MA and SD. All authors approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethics approval
This retrospective chart review was given approval by the Health Research Ethics Board, University of Alberta (Pro00096136).
Consent to participate
Not applicable as this was a retrospective chart review.
Consent for publication
Not applicable as this was a retrospective chart review.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mancuso, M., Lavoie, C., Assmus, M. et al. Characterizing patients with multiple same-sided ureteric stones. World J Urol 40, 1763–1767 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04035-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04035-x