Current Management Concepts in the Treatment of Ureteral Stones

  • Gerhard J. Fuchs
  • Christian G. Chaussy
  • Leon Bender
  • Arnulf Stenzl


Since ureteral stones have been included in the range of stones routinely treated by ESWL, controversy as to whether ESWL should be done in situ or whether it should be preceded by ureteral stone manipulation has occurred. In this regard, we have noticed a continental division, reflecting the peculiarities of the differences in health care systems in Europe and the United States. In the U.S., most physicians prefer retrograde stone manipulation with or without the use of ureteral stents. Ureteral stone manipulation is performed in order to reposition the stone into the renal collecting system. A stent is commonly used to bypass the stone and to create an artificial expansion chamber.

At UCLA we pursue a differentiated approach which is as follows: Based on the radiographic appearance of an existing natural expansion chamber, approximately 10% of stones above the iliac crest and 25% of stones located in the pelvic window (that is, in the true pelvis, below the pelvic brim), are eligible for ESWL in situ treatment. All other stones, which do not qualify for in situ treatment, undergo ureteral stone manipulation, utilizing stents and extensive ureteral lubrication. This differential approach has advantages over our previously described combined approach, in that it does not change the success rate (97%) and overall hospital stay (1.2 days), but it does save ureteral manipulation for approximately 30% of patients. Stones which cannot be manipulated, cases of failed ESWL treatment, and persistent steinstrasse are treated with ureteroscopy.


Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Ureteral Stone Stone Removal Ureteral Stents Ureteral Calculus 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chaussy CG, Schmiedt E, Jocham D, et al: First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J Urol 127: 417, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaussy CG, Schmiedt E, Jocham D, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. In Chaussy CG (ed): Technical Concept, Experimental Research and Clinical Application, Second Edition. Basel, Switzerland: Karger, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaussy CG and Fuchs G: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. In Stamey TA (ed): Monographs in Urology 8.4: 87, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaussy CG, Fuchs G, Kahn R, et al: Transurethral ultrasonic ureterolithotripsy using a solid wire probe. Urology 29: 531, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaussy C and Fuchs G: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of distal ureteral calculi: is it worthwhile? J Endourol 1: 1, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drach GW, Dretler SP, Fair WR, et al: Report of the United States cooperative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 135: 1127, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eisenberger F, Fuchs G, Miller K, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endourology-an ideal combination for the treatment of kidney stones. World J Urol 3: 41, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eisenberger F, Miller K, Fuchs G, et al: In Eisenberger F and Miller K (eds): Urologische Steintherapie. Stuttgart: Thieme, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evans R, Wingfield D, Morollo B, et al: Ureteral stone manipulation before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 139: 33, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fuchs G, Lupu A, Chaussy CG: Ultrasounic lithotripsy for ureteral calculi. Endourology 4: 5, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fuchs G, Chaussy CG, Riehle R: Treatment of ureteral stones. In Riehle R, Newman RC (eds): Principles of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy. New York: Churchill-Livingstone, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gumpinger R, Miller K, Fuchs G, et al: Antegrade ureteroscopy for stone removal. Eur Urol 11: 145, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huffman JL, Bagley DH, Schoenberg HW, et al: Transurethral removal of large ureteral and renal pelvic calculi using ureteroscopic ultrasonic lithotripsy. J Urol 130: 31, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lingeman JE, Sonda LP, Kahnoski RJ, et al: Ureteral stone management: emerging concepts. J Urol 135: 1172, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller K, Fuchs G, Rassweiler J, et al: Treatment of ureteral stone disease: the role of ESWL and endourology. World J Urol 3: 445, 1985.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mueller S, Wilbert D, Thueroff JW, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones: clinical experience and experimental findings. J Urol 135: 831, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Newman D: Two-year follow-up of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. J Endourol 2: 163, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rassweiler J, Lutz K, Gumpinger R, et al: Efficacy of in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for upper ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 12: 377, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riehle RA: An approach to upper ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Endourology 1: 5, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard J. Fuchs
    • 1
  • Christian G. Chaussy
    • 2
  • Leon Bender
    • 3
  • Arnulf Stenzl
    • 1
  1. 1.UCLA Stone CenterUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyStadt Krankenhaus HarlachingWest Germany
  3. 3.Division of UrologyCedars Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations