Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uretero(reno)skopie

Komplikationsmanagement

Uretero(reno)scopy

Management of complications

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die rigide und flexible Uretero(reno)skopie (URS) sind effektive und sichere Verfahren in der interventionellen Steintherapie. Komplikationen sind selten und können in vielen Fällen bereits im Vorfeld vermieden werden. Bei Harnleitersteinen hat die URS vielerorts die extrakorporale Stoßwellenlithotripsie (ESWL) als Verfahren der ersten Wahl abgelöst. Hierbei ist es jedoch wichtig, den betreffenden Patienten die Vor- und Nachteile bzw. Risiken der Verfahren ausführlich zu beschreiben.

Abstract

Rigid and flexible uretero(reno)scopy (URS) are safe and effective methods in interventional calculus therapy. Complications are rare and can be avoided in advance in many cases. In ureteroliths, URS has in many cases replaced extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) as the method of first choice. However, it is important to describe in detail the advantages and disadvantages as well as the risks of the procedure to the patient.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Nita G et al (2006) Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol 20(3):179–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51(4):899–906

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG et al (2007) 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 178(6):2418–2434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tiselius HG, Ackermann D, Alken P et al (2001) Guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Urol 40(4):362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2011) Guidelines on Urolithiasis. European Association of Urology, Arnheim, Niederlande, pp 1–104. http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines

  6. Turna B, Stein RJ, Smaldone MC et al (2008) Safety and efficacy of flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium: YAG lithotripsy for intrarenal stones in anticoagulated cases. J Urol 179(4):1415–1419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Semins MJ, Matlaga BR (2010) Management of stone disease in pregnancy. Curr Opin Urol 20(2):174–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gnessin E, Chertin L, Chertin B (2012) Current management of paediatric urolithiasis. 7:659–665. http://ovidsp.ovid.com

  9. Jeong US, Lee S, Kang J et al (2013) Factors affecting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for unilateral urinary stones in children: a 17-year single-institute experience. Korean J Urol 7:460–466. http://ovidsp.ovid.com

    Google Scholar 

  10. Somani BK, Ishii H, Ali A et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of flexible ureteroscopy and lasertripsy (FURSL) for large stones. J Urol 187(4):741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG et al (2012) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones > 2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 26(10):1257–1263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Poggio M, Scarpa RM (2010) Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for high burden renal stones. Arch Ital Urol Androl 82(1):41–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ghani KR, Patel U, Anson K (2009) Computed tomography for percutaneous renal access. J Endurol 23(10):1633–1639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lamb AD, Wines MD, Mousa S et al (2008) Plain radiography still is required in the planning of treatment for urolithiasis. J Endourol 22(10):2201–2205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ben Nakhi A, Gupta R, Al-Hunayan A et al (2010) Comparative analysis and interobserver variation of unenhanced computed tomography and intravenous urography in the diagnosis of acute flank pain. Med Princ Pract 19(2):118–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jellison FC, Smith JC, Heldt JP et al (2009) Effect of low dose radiation computerized tomography protocols on distal ureteral calculus detection. J Urol 182(6):2762–2767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shine S (2008) Urinary calculus: IVU vs. CT renal stone? A critically appraised topic. Abdom Imaging 33(1):41–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tuerk CK, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2012) Guidelines office, guidelines on urolithiasis. Presented at the 27th EAU Congress, Paris

  19. Zanetti G, Paparella S, Trinchieri A et al (2008) Infections and urolithiasis: current clinical evidence in prophylaxis and antibiotic therapy. Arch Ital Urol Androl 80(1):5–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dogan HS, Sahin A, Cetinkaya Y et al (2002) Antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study in 81 patients. J Endurol 16(9):649–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wagenlehner FM, Schmiemann G, Hoyme U et al (2011) National S3 guideline on uncomplicated urinary tract infection: recommendations for treatment and management of uncomplicated community-acquired bacterial urinary tract infections in adult patients. Urologe A 50(2):153–169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Raum MR, Klotz T, Heidenreich A et al (1996) Compartment syndrome: a complication of lithotomy position. Urologe A 35(1):46–50

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cybulski PA, Joo H, Honey RJ (2004) Ureteroscopy: anesthetic considerations. Urol Clin North Am 31(1):43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yalcinkaya F, Topaloglu H, Ozmen E, Unal S (1996) Is general anaesthesia necessary for URS in women? Int Urol Nephrol 28(2):153–156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Knoll T (2009) S2 guidelines on diagnostic, therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis: Part 1: diagnostic and therapy. Urologe A 48(8):917–924

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ji C, Gan W, Guo H et al (2012) A prospective trial on ureteral stenting combined with secondary ureteroscopy after an initial failed procedure. Acta Cir Bras 5:593–598. http://ovidsp.ovid.com

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shields JM, Bird VG, Reid G et al (2009) Impact of preoperative ureteral stenting on outcome of ureteroscopic treatment for urinary lithiasis. J Urol 182(6):2768–2774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dickstein RJ, Kreshover JE, Babayan RK et al (2010) Is a safety wire necessary during routine flexible ureteroscopy? J Endourol 24(10):1589–1592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Eandi JA, Hu B, Low RK (2008) Evaluation of the impact and need for use of a safety guidewire during ureteroscopy. J Endourol 22(8):1653–1658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Traxer O, Thomas A (2013) Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. Minerva Med 2:580–584. http://ovidsp.ovid.com

    Google Scholar 

  31. Papatsoris A, Chrisofos M, Skolarikos A et al (2013) Update on intracorporeal laser lithotripsy. Minerva Med 104(1):55–60. http://ovidsp.ovid.com

    Google Scholar 

  32. Elashry OM, Tawfik AM (2012) Preventing stone retropulsion during intracorporeal lithotripsy. Nat Rev Urol 9(12):691–698. http://ovidsp.ovid.com

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ahmed M, Pedro RN, Kieley S et al (2009) Systematic evaluation of ureteral occlusion devices: insertion, deployment, stone migration, and extraction. Urology 73(5):976–980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cetti RJ, Keoghane SR, Walmsley BH (2010) Truly tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 92(3):269

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Kurien A et al (2010) Questioning the wisdom of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective randomized controlled study of early tube removal vs tubeless PCNL. BJU Int 106(7):1045–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Knoll T, Wezel F, Michel MS et al (2010) Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective study. J Endourol 24(7):1075–1079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Istanbulluoglu MO, Cicek T, Ozturk B et al (2009) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: nephrostomy or tubeless or totally tubeless? Urology 104(6):840–846

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gupta NP, Kesarwani P, Goel R et al (2008) Comparison of standard with tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22(7):1441–1446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Xu Y, Wei Q, Liu LR (2009) A prospective randomized trial comparing non-stented versus routine stented ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy. Saudi Med J 30(10):1276–1280

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mustafa M, Ali EDB (2009) Stenting in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy; may enhance the passage of the fragments! JPMA. J Pak Med Assoc 59(3):141–143

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Musa AA (2008) Use of double-J stents prior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is not beneficial: results of a prospective randomized study. Int Urol Nephrol 40(1):19–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Haleblian G, Kijvikain K, de la Rosette J et al (2008) Ureteral stenting and urinary stone management: a systematic review. J Urol 179(2):424–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Shao Y, Zhuo J, Sun XW et al (2008) Nonstented versus routine stented ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial. Urol Res 36(5):259–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ibrahim HM, Al-Kandari AM, Shaaban HS et al (2008) Role of ureteral stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for distal ureteral stones: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol 180(3):961–965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dellis A, Joshi HB, Timoney AG, Kelley FX Jr (2010) Relief of stent related symptoms: review of engineering and pharmacological solutions. J Urol 184(4):1267–1272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Nabi G, Cook J, N’Dow J et al (2007) Outcomes of stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 334(7593):572

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP et al (2003) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 169(3):1065–1069

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Al-Kandari AM, Al-Shaiji TF, Shaaban H et al (2007) Effects of proximal and distal ends of double-J ureteral stent position on postprocedural symptoms and quality of life: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol 21(7):698–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lee SJ, Yoo C, Oh CY et al (2010) Stent position is more important than alpha-blockers or anticholinergics for stent-related lower urinary tract symptoms after ureteroscopic ureterolithotomy: a prospective randomized study. Korean J Urol 51(9):636–641

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Jeon SS, Choi YS, Hong JH (2007) Determination of ideal stent length for endourologic surgery. J Endurol 21(8):906–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Damiano R, Autorino R, De Sio M et al (2005) Does the size of ureteral stent impact urinary symptoms and quality of life? A prospective randomized study. Eur Urol 48(4):673–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rane A, Saleemi A, Cahill D et al (2001) Have stent-related symptoms anything to do with placement technique? J Endourol 15(7):741–745

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Navanimitkul N, Lojanapiwat B (2010) Efficacy of tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day in relieving double-J stent-related symptoms: a randomized controlled study. J Int Med Res 38(4):1436–1441

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wang CJ, Huang SW, Chang CH (2009) Effects of specific alpha-1A/1D blocker on lower urinary tract symptoms due to double-J stent: a prospectively randomized study. Urol Res 37(3):147–152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wang CJ, Huang SW, Chang CH (2009) Effects of tamsulosin on lower urinary tract symptoms due to double-J stent: a prospective study. Urol Int 83(1):66–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Damiano R (2008) Effect of tamsulosin in preventing ureteral stent-related morbidity: a prospective study. J Endurol 22(4):651–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Jeong H, Kwak C, Lee SE (2004) Ureteric stenting after ureteroscopy for ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study assessing symptoms and complications. BJU Int 93(7):1032–1034 (discussion 1034–1035)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Auge BK, Sarvis JA, L’Esperance JO, Preminger G (2007) Practice patterns of ureteral stenting after routine ureteroscopic stone surgery: a survey of practicing urologists. J Endourol 21(11):1287–1291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Shigemura K, Yasufuku T, Yamanaka K et al (2012) How long should double J stent be kept in after ureteroscopic lithotripsy? Urol Res 40(4):373–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Perez Castro E, Osther PJ, Jinga V 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 (Epub ahead of print)

  61. Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R et al (2008) Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 179(5 Suppl):69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

T. Knoll und G. Wendt-Nordahl geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urologische Klinik Sindelfingen, Klinikum Sindelfingen-Böblingen, Arthur-Gruber-Straße 70, 71065, Sindelfingen, Deutschland

    T. Knoll & G. Wendt-Nordahl

Authors
  1. T. Knoll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Wendt-Nordahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Knoll.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knoll, T., Wendt-Nordahl, G. Uretero(reno)skopie. Urologe 53, 689–694 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3479-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3479-3

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation