Skip to main content

Update of the ICUD-SIU consultation on stone technology behind ureteroscopy

World Journal of Urology volume 35, pages 1353–1359 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Ureteroscopy is now the most frequent treatment used around the world for stone disease. Technological advancement, efficiency, safety, and minimally invasiveness of this procedure are some of the reasons for this change of trend.

Materials and methods

In this review of the literature, a search of the PubMed database was conducted to identify articles related to ureteroscopy and accessories. The committee assigned by the International Consultation on Urological Disease reviewed all the data and produced a consensus statement relating to the ureteroscopy and all the particularities around this procedure.

Conclusion

This manuscript provides literatures and recommendations for endourologists to keep them informed in regard to the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative consideration in regard of a ureteroscopy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS (2012) Prevalence of kidney stones in United States. Eur Urol 62(1):160–165

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bourdoumis A, Stasinou T, Kachrilas S et al (2014) Thromboprophylaxis and bleeding diathesis in minimally invasive stone surgery. Nat Rev Urol 11(1):51–58

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fulgham PF, Assimos DS, Pearle MS, Preminger GM (2013) Clinical effectiveness protocols for imaging in the management of ureteral calculous disease: AUA technology assessment. J Urol 189(4):1203–1213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Giusti G, Proietti S, Peschechera R et al (2014) Sky is no limit for URS: extending the indications and special circumstances. World J Urol 33(2):257–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kandasami SV, Mamoulakis C, El-Nahas AR et al (2014) Impact of case volume on outcomes of ureteroscopy for ureteral stones: the clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study. Eur Urol 66(6):1046–1051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Park HK, Paick SH, Oh SJ, Kim HH (2004) Ureteroscopic lithotripsy under local anesthesia: analysis of the effectiveness and patient tolerability. Eur Urol 45(5):670–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grabe M, Bartoletti R, Johansen TEB, Cai T, Çek M, Köves B, Naber KG, Pickard RS, Tenke P, Wagenlehner F, Wullt B (2014) Guidelines on urological infections. Eur Assoc Urol. https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/19-Urological-infections_LR2.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2015

  9. Korkes F, Lopes-Neto AC, Mattos MH et al (2009) Patient position and semi-rigid ureteroscopy outcomes. Int Braz J Urol 35(5):542–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pan J, Xue W, Xia L et al (2014) Ureteroscopic lithotripsy in Trendelenburg position for proximal ureteral calculi: a prospective, randomized, comparative study. Int Urol Nephrol 46(10):1895–1901

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Atis G, Arikan O, Gurbuz C et al (2013) Comparison of different ureteroscope sizes in treating ureteral calculi in adult patients. Urology 82:1231–1235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Deters LA, Dagrosa LM, Herrick BW et al (2014) Ultrasound guided ureteroscopy for the definitive management of ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial. J Urol 192(6):1710–1713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ng YH, Somani BK, Dennison A et al (2010) Irrigant flow and intrarenal pressure during flexible ureteroscopy: the effect of different access sheaths, working channel instruments, and hydrostatic pressure. J Endourol 24(12):1915–1920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM (2001) Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 165(3):789–793

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Doizi S, Knoll T, Scoffone CM et al (2014) First clinical evaluation of a new innovative ureteral access sheath (Re-Trace): a European study. World J Urol 32:143–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cabrera FJ, Preminger GM, Lipkin ME (2014) Antiretropulsion devices. Curr Opin Urol 24(2):173–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ursiny M, Eisner BH (2013) Cost-effectiveness of anti-retropulsion devices for ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Urol 189(5):1762–1766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hendlin K, Weiland D, Monga M (2008) Impact of irrigation systems on stone migration. J Endourol 22(3):453–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shalaby E, Ahmed AF, Maarouf A et al (2013) Randomized controlled trial to compare the safety and efficacy of tamsulosin, solifenacin, and combination of both in treatment of double-j stent-related lower urinary symptoms. Adv Urol 2013:752382

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Somani BK, Desai M, Traxer O, Lahme S (2014) Stone-free rate (SFR): a new proposal for defining levels of SFR. Urolithiasis 42(2):95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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):S69–S73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sener NC, Imamoglu MA, Bas O et al (2014) Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm. Urolithiasis 42(2):127–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kumar A, Kumar N, Vasudeva P et al (2015) A prospective randomized comparison between shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and miniperc for treatment of 1–2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi: a single centre experience. J Urol 193(1):160–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Aboumarzouk O, Monga M, Kat 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 

  27. Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert J, Schulam P (2009) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for multiple unilateral intrarenal stones. Eur Urol 55(5):1190–1196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Georgescu D, Mulţescu R, Geavlete B, Geavlete P (2014) Intraoperative complications after 8150 semirigid ureteroscopies for ureteral lithiasis: risk analysis and management. Chirurgia 109(3):369–374

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Castro Perez, Osther P, 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 66(1):102–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Tenon Hospital, Pierre et Marie Curie University, Paris, France

    Olivier Traxer

  2. Department of Urology, CHU de Québec, Laval University, Quebec, Canada

    Jonathan Cloutier

  3. Department of Urology, St George’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Ken Anson

  4. Ville Turro Division, Department of Urology, Ospedale San Raffaele, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy

    Guido Giusti

  5. Department of Urology, Lenox Hill Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Michael Grasso

  6. Department of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam Z-O, The Netherlands

    Guido Kamphuis

  7. Department of Urology, Hospital St. Trudpert, Pforzheim, Germany

    Sven Lahme

  8. Department of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece

    Evangelos Liatsikos

  9. Department of Urology, St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

    Anup Patel

  10. Departments of Urology and Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

    Margaret S. Pearle

  11. Department of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada

    Luc Valiquette

Authors
  1. Jonathan Cloutier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ken Anson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guido Giusti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Grasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guido Kamphuis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sven Lahme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Evangelos Liatsikos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anup Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Margaret S. Pearle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Luc Valiquette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Olivier Traxer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J. Cloutier: Project development, protocol, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing; K. Anson: Manuscript writing/editing; G. Giusti: Manuscript writing/editing; M. Grasso: Manuscript writing/editing; G. Kamphuis: Manuscript writing/editing; S. Lahme: Manuscript writing/editing; E. Liatsikos: Manuscript writing/editing; A. Patel: Manuscript writing/editing; M. Pearl: Manuscript writing/editing; L. Valiquette: Manuscript writing/editing; and O. Traxer: Project development, protocol, and manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Cloutier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

For this type of study, formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal (review) consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cloutier, J., Anson, K., Giusti, G. et al. Update of the ICUD-SIU consultation on stone technology behind ureteroscopy. World J Urol 35, 1353–1359 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2073-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2073-x

Keywords

  • Semi-rigid and flexible ureteroscopy
  • Guidewires
  • Ureteral access sheath
  • Antiretropulsion devices
  • Irrigation devices
  • Ureteral stents
  • Ureteroscopy outcomes and complications
  • Recommendations