Ureteroscopy pp 179-197 | Cite as

Stone Baskets and Forceps

  • Kirsten Foell
  • R. John D’A. Honey
  • Kenneth T. PaceEmail author
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)


Stone extraction devices are an important part of ureteroscopic stone extraction and laser lithotripsy. The instruments have evolved significantly as more advanced and miniaturized flexible ureteroscopes have been developed. Currently, tipless nitinol stone baskets are available from a number of manufacturers. The nitinol baskets do not affect the deflection of the flexible ureteroscope and can also be used with semirigid ureteroscopes. There is a reduction in the flow of irrigant with the use of stone extraction devices, but this is proportional to the size of the device. Nitinol baskets are safe for use in all parts of the collecting system and should be considered a standard first choice when a stone basket is used. Dormia helical and Segura flatwire baskets remain available commercially and may be useful in select cases but are not commonly used.

Antiretropulsion devices, as well as BackStop (Cook Urological, Bloomington, IN, USA) and basket retention of a stone during laser lithotripsy, can reduce the migration of ureteral stones to the kidney during ureteroscopic lithotripsy and help to avoid additional procedures. For the three devices available, some data is available showing safety, however further clinical studies are required to establish whether their routine use for ureteral stones is warranted and cost effective.

The most feared complication of the use of stone extraction devices is ureteral avulsion. The use of these devices and stone extraction should only be performed under direct vision, while observing the urothelium slide over the stone. If basket impaction occurs, no further traction should be applied to the basket. Laser can be applied to the stone or the basket itself.


Ureteral Stone Laser Lithotripsy Flexible Ureteroscopes Ureteral Access Sheath Stone Basket 
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.


  1. 1.
    Honey RJD’A. Working instruments. In: Smith AD, Badlani GH, Bagley DH, Clayman RV, Docimo SG, Jordan GH, Kavoussi LR, Lee BR, Lingeman JE, Preminger GM, Segura JW. Smith’s Textbook of Endourology. Hamilton, ON, Canada: BC Decker Inc.; 2007. p. 209–12.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Honey RJD’A. Assessment of a new tipless nitinol stone basket and comparison with an existing flat-wire basket. J Endourol. 1998;12(6):529–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leone NT, Garcia-Roig M, Bagley DH. Changing trends in the use of ureteroscopic instruments from 1996 to 2008. J Endourol. 2010;24(3):361–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chenven ES, Bagley DH. Retrieval and releasing capabilities of stone basket designs in-vitro. J Endourol. 2005;19(2):204–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Dretler SP, Kahn RI, Lingeman JE, Macaluso Jr JN. Ureteral stones clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1997;158:191501921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Monga M, Hendlin K, Lee C, Anderson K. Systematic evaluation of stone basket dimensions. Urology. 2004;63:1042–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blew BDM, Dagnone AJ, Fazio LM, Pace KT, Honey RJD’A. Practical comparison of four nitinol stone baskets. J Endourol. 2007;21(6):655–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hendlin K, Lee C, Anderson JK, Monga M. Radial dilation force of tipless and helical stone baskets. J Endourol. 2004;18(10):946–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lukasewycz S, Skenazy J, Hoffman N, Kuskowski M, Hendlin K, Monga M. Comparison of nitinol tipless stone baskets in an in vitro calyceal model. J Urol. 2004;172:562–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bach T, Geavlete B, Herrmann TR, Gross AJ. Working tools in flexible ureterorenoscopy- influence on flow and deflection: What does matter? J Endourol. 2008;22(8):1639–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weiland D, Hendlin K, Canales BK, Lukasewycz S. Monga. Lateral deflection to release a stone: A simple method. J Endourol. 2007;21(10):1149–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Michel MS, Knoll T, Ptaschnyk T, Kohrmann KU, Alken P. Flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of lower pole calyx stones: Influence of different lithotripsy probes and stone extraction tools on scope deflection and irrigation flow. Eur Urol. 2002;41(3):312–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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;82:356–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feng C, Ding Q, Jiang H, Gao P, Wen H, Gu B. Use of ntrap during ureteroscopic holmium-yag laser lithotripsy of upper ureteral calculi. Minim Invasive Ther. 2012;21(2):78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wosnitzer M, Xavier K, Gupta M. Novel use of a ­ureteroscopic stone entrapment device to prevent antegrade stone migration during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2009;23(2):203–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chew BH, Gotto G, Teichman J, Paterson RF. The accordion: A new device to prevent stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2007;21 Suppl 1:A108.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rane A, Bradoo A, Rao P, Shivde S, Elhilali M, Anidjar M, 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;183:1417–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gallentine ML, Bishoff JT, Harmon WJ. The broken stone basket: Configuration and technique for removal. J Endourol. 2001;15(9):911–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chew BH, Jonat L, Paterson R, Teichman J. Anti-Retropulsion devices increase stone fragmentation efficiency with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2009;23 Suppl 1:A345.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nagele U, Horstmann M, Hennenlotter J, Walcher U, Kuczyk MA, Sievert KD, et al. Size does matter: 1.5 fr. Stone baskets almost double irrigation flow during flexible ureteroscopy compared to 1.9 fr. Stone baskets. Urol Res. 2006;34:389–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Watson G. The use of a sheathless basket via miniature ureteroscopes. Diagn Ther Endosc. 1995;1:177–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Landman J, Monga M, El-Gabry EA, Rehman J, Lee DI, Bhayani S, et al. Bare naked baskets: Ureteroscope deflection and flow characteristics with intact and disassembled ureteroscopic nitinol stone baskets. J Urol. 2002;167:2377–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bhayani SB, Monga M, Landman JL, Clayman RV. Bare naked baskets: Optimizing ureteroscopic stone extraction. Urology. 2002;60(1):147–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alapont JM, Broseta E, Oliver F, Pontones JL, Boronat F, Jimenez-Cruz JF. Ureteral avulsion as a complication of ureteroscopy. Int Brazilian J Urol. 2003;29(1):18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Elashry OM, Elgamasy AK, Sabaa MA, Abo-Elenien M, Eltatawy HH, El-Abd SA. Ureteroscopic management of lower ureteric calculi: A 15-year single-centre experience. Brit J Urol Int. 2008;102(8):1010–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ordon M, Schuler TD, Honey RJD’A. Ureteral avulsion during contemporary ureteroscopic stone management: “The scabbard avulsion”. J Endourol. 2011;25(8):1259–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Allen D, Hindley RG, Glass JM. Baskets in the kidney: An old problem in a new situation. J Endourol. 2003;17(7):495–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chotikawanich E, Korman E, Monga M. Complications of stone baskets: 14-Year review of the manufacturer and user facility device experience database. J Urol. 2011;185:179–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsten Foell
    • 1
  • R. John D’A. Honey
    • 1
  • Kenneth T. Pace
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, St. Michael’s HospitalUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations