Advertisement

Ureteroscopy pp 169-178 | Cite as

Stone Migration Devices

  • Evgeniy Kreydin
  • Brian EisnerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)

Abstract

Cephalad stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy can be problematic as it may lead to increased operative times, increased cost, and increased numbers of additional procedures required to treat clinically significant fragments which have migrated to the upper ureter or kidney. Since the early 2000s, a number of devices have been devised specifically for the purpose of prevention of stone migration. These devices have been shown to significantly limit the incidence of stone migration, and some urologists have found these to be a valuable tool in their arsenal when treating ureteral stones. Herein we review the currently available devices designed to prevent stone migration and the body of literature that has come from their use.

Keywords

Shock Wave Lithotripsy Ureteral Stone Stone Fragment Laser Lithotripsy Distal Ureteral Stone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Preminger GM, et al. 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol. 2007;52(6):1610–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dretler SP. The stone cone: a new generation of basketry. J Urol. 2001;165(5):1593–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Finley DS, et al. Effect of holmium:YAG laser pulse width on lithotripsy retropulsion in vitro. J Endourol. 2005;19(8):1041–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee H, et al. Stone retropulsion during holmium:YAG lithotripsy. J Urol. 2003;169(3):881–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marguet CG, et al. In vitro comparison of stone retropulsion and fragmentation of the frequency doubled, double pulse nd:yag laser and the holmium:yag laser. J Urol. 2005;173(5):1797–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eisner BH, Pengune W, Stoller ML. Use of an antiretropulsion device to prevent stone retropulsion significantly increases the efficiency of pneumatic lithotripsy: an in vitro study. BJU Int. 2009;104(6):858–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee HJ, et al. In vitro evaluation of nitinol urological retrieval coil and ureteral occlusion device: retropulsion and holmium laser fragmentation efficiency. J Urol. 2008;180(3):969–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chow GK, et al. Ureteroscopy: effect of technology and technique on clinical practice. J Urol. 2003;170(1):99–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang CJ, Huang SW, Chang CH. Randomized trial of NTrap for proximal ureteral stones. Urology. 2011;77(3):553–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dretler SP. Ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi: prevention of stone migration. J Endourol. 2000;14(7):565–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hendlin K, Weiland D, Monga M. Impact of irrigation systems on stone migration. J Endourol. 2008;22(3):453–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holley PG, et al. Assessment of novel ureteral occlusion device and comparison with stone cone in prevention of stone fragment migration during lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2005;19(2):200–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elashry OM, et al. Intracorporeal electrohydraulic lithotripsy of ureteral and renal calculi using small caliber (1.9F) electrohydraulic lithotripsy probes. J Urol. 1996;156(5):1581–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Teichman JM, et al. Ureteroscopic management of ureteral calculi: electrohydraulic versus holmium:YAG lithotripsy. J Urol. 1997;158(4):1357–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knispel HH, et al. Pneumatic lithotripsy applied through deflected working channel of miniureteroscope: results in 143 patients. J Endourol. 1998;12(6):513–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang SS, Hong JS. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy of upper ureteral calculi with semirigid ureteroscope. J Endourol. 1996;10(1):27–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bapat SS, et al. Comparison of holmium laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in managing upper-ureteral stones. J Endourol. 2007;21(12):1425–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tipu SA, et al. Treatment of ureteric calculi—use of Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy versus pneumatic lithoclast. J Pak Med Assoc. 2007;57(9):440–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kang HW, et al. Dependence of calculus retropulsion on pulse duration during Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy. Lasers Surg Med. 2006;38(8):762–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    White MD, et al. Evaluation of retropulsion caused by holmium:YAG laser with various power settings and fibers. J Endourol. 1998;12(2):183–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maislos SD, et al. Efficacy of the Stone Cone for treatment of proximal ureteral stones. J Endourol. 2004;18(9):862–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vejdani K, et al. Effect of laser insult on devices used to prevent stone retropulsion during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2009;23(2):249–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Desai MR, et al. The Dretler stone cone: a device to prevent ureteral stone migration-the initial clinical experience. J Urol. 2002;167(5):1985–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pardalidis NP, Papatsoris AG, Kosmaoglou EV. Prevention of retrograde calculus migration with the Stone Cone. Urol Res. 2005;33(1):61–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eisner BH, Dretler SP. Use of the Stone Cone for prevention of calculus retropulsion during holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy: case series and review of the literature. Urol Int. 2009;82(3):356–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee MJ, Lee ST, Min SK. Use of NTrap(R) during ureteroscopic lithotripsy for upper ureteral stones. Korean J Urol. 2010;51(10):719–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ding H, et al. NTrap in prevention of stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2011;26(2):130–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chew BH, Gotto G, Teichman JM. The Accordion: a new device to prevent stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2007;21 Suppl 1:A108.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ditrolio JV, Balla R. Limiting stone retropulsion during laser lithotripsy with a novel ureteral occluding device. J Endourol. 2007;21 Suppl 1:A285.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rane A, et al. The use of a novel reverse thermosensitive polymer to prevent ureteral stone retropulsion during intracorporeal lithotripsy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol. 2010;183(4):1417–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sacco D, McDougal WS, Schwarz A. Preventing migration of stones during fragmentation with thermosensitive polymer. J Endourol. 2007;21(5):504–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ali AA, et al. A novel method to prevent retrograde displacement of ureteric calculi during intracorporeal lithotripsy. BJU Int. 2004;94(3):441–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zehri AA, et al. A randomized clinical trial of lidocaine jelly for prevention of inadvertent retrograde stone migration during pneumatic lithotripsy of ureteral stone. J Urol. 2008;180(3):966–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bastawisy M, et al. A comparison of Stone Cone versus lidocaine jelly in the prevention of ureteral stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Ther Adv Urol. 2011;3(5):203–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eisner BH, et al. Differences in stone size and ureteral dilation between obstructing proximal and distal ureteral calculi. Urology. 2008;72(3):517–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ahmed M, et al. Systematic evaluation of ureteral occlusion devices: insertion, deployment, stone migration, and extraction. Urology. 2009;73(5):976–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Adam C. Maximum force generated to retract three stone-trapping devices around a stone in a ureter model with a stricture. J Endourol. 2007;21 Suppl 1:A3.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tarin TV, Shinghal R. Ureteral anti-retropulsive devices decrease renal pelvic pressure. J Urol. 2009;181(4 Suppl):661–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Geavlete P, et al. Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol. 2006;20(3):179–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Olweny E, Eisner BH, Stoller ML. Cost-effectiveness of anti-retropulsion devices for ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2009;23 Suppl 1:A 121.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations