Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Characterizing patients with multiple same-sided ureteric stones

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

All data comply with field standards.

References

  1. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

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

Correspondence to Shubha De.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04035-x

Keywords

Navigation