Ureteral stone manipulation before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

We randomized 75 patients with solitary ureteral calculi that could not be dislodged by ureteral catheterization to receive instillation of saline, 2 per cent lidocaine viscous solution or dilute surgical lubricant before repeat stone manipulation with ureteral catheters. Of the stones irrigated with saline 76 per cent were returned to the pelvis along with 60 per cent of the lidocaine group and 48 per cent of the surgical lubricant treated stones. There was no statistical significance among the 3 groups. The success rates for upper, mid and lower ureteral stones were 80, 54 and 30 per cent, respectively. Of stones 0.5 cm. or less and between 0.6 and 1.0 cm. 77 and 72 per cent, respectively, were manipulated successfully but only 38 per cent of the stones larger than 1.0 cm. could be dislodged. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was successful in treating pelvic and ureteral stones, although higher kilovolt settings and additional shocks were necessary to fragment the ureteral stones completely. Percutaneous nephrostomy or ureteral meatotomy was required in 10 per cent of the patients with impacted ureteral stones following in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy but in only 4 per cent of the patients with stones successfully returned to the pelvis. Of the ureteral stones 17 per cent were treated with repeat extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. No patient with pelvic stones required repeat treatment. Retrograde manipulation of ureteral stones is an effective adjunctive procedure before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.     

A modified algorithm for the management of ureteral calculi: 100 consecutive cases

We treated 100 consecutive ureteral calculi requiring intervention with a previously described algorithm. There were 16 ureteropelvic junction, and 18 upper, 22 mid and 44 lower ureteral calculi. Treatment was by a stent and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 10 ureteropelvic junction, 10 upper ureteral and 3 mid ureteral calculi, ureteroscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 6 upper and 6 mid ureteral calculi, and ureteroscopy alone in 5 ureteropelvic junction, 2 upper and 12 mid ureteral calculi. All 44 lower ureteral calculi were treated successfully by ureteroscopy. Of the 100 patients studied 98 were treated by endourological methods (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy), while 2 required an operation (1 with a ureteropelvic junction calculus and 1 with a mid ureteral calculus). Over-all, 100 patients required a total of 125 procedures to accomplish successful stone removal. An algorithm is developed in which lower ureteral calculi are treated by ureteroscopy, mid ureteral calculi (large and dense) by stent bypass and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or (lucent and fragile) by ureteroscopy, upper ureteral calculi by stent bypass and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy without manipulation, and impacted ureteral stones initially by ureteroscopy and, if necessary, then by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.     

Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Two new therapies, percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, are revolutionizing the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi. We report the success and morbidity rates in 110 patients undergoing percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and 982 patients treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Staghorn calculi were excluded from this series. The over-all success rate (free of stones plus small asymptomatic residual fragments) was comparable with both modalities (percutaneous nephrostolithotomy 98 per cent and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 95 per cent), although the presence of residual fragments was more common in kidneys treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (24 versus 7 per cent). Patient morbidity as measured by temperature elevation, length of postoperative stay, pain and blood loss was significantly less (p less than 0.05) with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy than with percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. Re-treatment rates were similar with both procedures, and tended to increase in relation to increasing stone size and stone number. Post-treatment ancillary procedures (cystoscopy and stone manipulation, and percutaneous nephrostomy) were used more frequently with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Because of its efficacy and low morbidity, we conclude that extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is the treatment of choice for upper urinary tract calculi less than 2 cm. in diameter. However, percutaneous nephrostolithotomy will continue to have a primary role in the management of larger stones and cystine stones, and it will be used as a secondary procedure after unsuccessful extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatments. In addition, because of the complimentary nature of these 2 new technologies certain complex stones, such as staghorn calculi, may be handled best by a combination of the 2 techniques.     

Management of the impacted ureteral calculus

The management of 42 impacted ureteral calculi is reviewed. Impacted stones were defined by the inability to pass a guide wire or catheter on initial attempts. Stones were impacted in the upper ureter in 10 patients, mid ureter in 11 and lower ureter in 21. Upper ureteral stones were treated in 8 patients by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy after disimpaction by laser or other techniques. Mid ureteral stones were treated by laser alone in 7 patients and by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy after disimpaction in 4. Lower stones were treated by laser in 17 patients and ultrasound in 2. Complications included 3 major and 5 minor perforations, and 4 false passages. Treatment was successful without an open operation in 40 of 42 patients (95%). Our current approach to impacted ureteral calculi involves passing a rigid ureteroscope to the stone, with disimpaction performed by laser fragmentation or other dislodgement maneuvers. Proximal stones or large fragments then are treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Mid ureteral stones are treated similarly, unless they are so fragile that in situ fragmentation may be completed easily. Lower ureteral stones are fragmented in situ, with hard fragments extracted by basket. Alternative treatments for impacted calculi at all levels include unstented in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, antegrade ureteroscopy and, finally, an operation.     

Management of upper ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

The results of 471 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatments in 465 patients with solitary ureteral stones managed by several different techniques are reported. In situ treatment was performed in 123 cases without instrumentation and in 47 after placement of a ureteral catheter. Retrograde stone manipulation was performed in 245 cases immediately before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and an additional 56 were manipulated with ureteral stent placement at least 1 week before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. The success rate was significantly greater if the stone was manipulated into the kidney before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Significantly less energy (p less than 0.0001) was required for complete disintegration if the stone was free floating in the kidney. The need for subsequent procedures was significantly less (p less than 0.0001) for stones manipulated successfully into the kidney. Complications were infrequent, with the most common being ureteral perforation in 5.1 per cent of the cases, all of which were managed conservatively. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is the treatment of choice for proximal ureteral calculi because it is less morbid than percutaneous approaches and provides significantly better results than ureteroscopy. An attempt at manipulation of proximal ureteral calculi back into the kidney should be made before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy: experience with piezoelectric second generation lithotriptor in 642 patients

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy was performed in 642 patients for 1 year with an EDAP-LT01 piezoelectric lithotriptor. Of 642 patients 398 completed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment and 244 still are undergoing multiple extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy sessions. The 398 patients had renal (64.6 per cent) or ureteral (35.4 per cent) stones 0.6 to 4.8 cm. in diameter (mean 1.4 cm.). No general or regional anesthesia was required except in 7 children. Among 398 patients who completed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy the rate free of stones was 73.4 per cent and the rate of clinically insignificant residual fragments was 12.8 per cent. The success rate (rate free of calculi plus that of clinically insignificant renal fragments) ranged from 95.6 per cent for stones 0.6 to 1.0 cm. in diameter to 52.6 per cent for stones larger than 3.0 cm. (mean 86.2 per cent). The number of treatment sessions in 343 patients with successful results increased in accordance with the stone size, with an average of 1.6 sessions. Double-J* stents were placed in 7 patients and ureteral catheterization was performed in 11 as post-extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy adjunctive measures. The steinstrasse phenomenon was noted in 14 patients, of whom only 1 required Double-J stenting. There were no significant complications. Therefore, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy with the piezoelectric lithotriptor is considered to be a safe and efficient outpatient procedure for the initial treatment of urinary stones regardless of stone sizes.     

Comparison of transurethral ureteroscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of ureteral calculi

Ureteral calculi were treated by transurethral uretereoscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), and the results were compared. Rigid transurethral ureteroscopy was performed in 50 patients, and 10 of 22 stones located in the upper ureter and 25 of 29 stones located in the lower ureter were successfully extracted. On the other hand, we treated 88 patients with upper ureteral stones by ESWL and achieved a success rate of 89.8%. We therefore conclude that for upper ureteral stones, ESWL is the more effective treatment and, for lower ureteral stones, transurethral ureteroscopy.     

Low success rate of repeat shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones after failed initial treatment

PURPOSE: We determined the number of shock wave lithotripsy treatments that should be given for a single ureteral stone before alternate modalities are used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the stone-free rate of initial shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi with that of subsequent treatments. We evaluated 1,593 ureteral stones treated with the Dornier MFL 5000 lithotriptor* from January 1, 1994 to September 1, 1999 using various parameters associated with treatment outcome. RESULTS: The stone-free rate after initial treatment was 68% (1,086 of 1,593 stones), which decreased to 46% (126 of 273) after re-treatment 1. We observed a further decrease in the stone-free rate after re-treatment 2 to 31% (19 of 61 stones, p = 0.001). The cumulative stone-free rate increased to 76% (1,212 of 1,593 stones) after 2 treatments and to 77% (1,231 of 1593) after 3. The stone-free rate for stones 10 mm. or less was significantly better than that of stones 11 to 20 mm. initially (64% versus 43%) and after re-treatment (49% versus 37%). A ureteral stent decreased the stone-free rate of initial treatment and re-treatment 1 by 12% and 14%, respectively (p = 0.001). After initial treatment the stone-free rate of the upper and mid ureter was significantly higher than that of the lower ureter. Patient weight had no significant impact on success in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The stone-free rate of re-treating ureteral calculi with shock wave lithotripsy decreases significantly after the initial treatment. These findings imply that ureteroscopic management of ureteral stones may be better than shock wave lithotripsy after initial shock wave lithotripsy fails.     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones: a retrospective analysis of 417 cases

We treated 417 patients with upper ureteral stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. All patients with obstructing stones underwent retrograde manipulation, which was successful in 57 per cent. Management of obstructing stones in situ (215 patients) with and without decompression of the collecting system required additional treatments in 13 per cent and ancillary procedures in 25 per cent. Nonocclusive ureteral stones were not manipulated. Treatment of these stones in situ slightly increased the need for postoperative ancillary procedures, compared to successful repositioning into the kidney (5.9 versus 3 per cent). Secondary treatments, however, were necessary as often as with occlusive stones. The main reason for failure of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was the lack of fluid around an impacted stone. An energy absorptive effect of muscle tissue for stones projecting on the psoas muscle could not be demonstrated. The best and most consistent results were obtained when the stone was manipulated successfully into the renal collecting system.     

Ureteral stenting during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: help or hindrance?

We retrospectively reviewed the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with renal calculi less than 3 cm. in size who were treated at a large multi-user lithotripsy center. Patients in whom indwelling ureteral stents were placed before lithotripsy treatment were subjected to higher levels of total power (shocks times voltage), yet the rate free of stones did not differ from those treated without a stent. In addition, the patients with internal ureteral stents experienced a significantly higher incidence of urinary urgency (43 versus 25 per cent) and hematuria (40 versus 23 per cent) than nonstented patients, respectively (p less than 0.05). Also, the duration of bladder discomfort was longer for stented patients (26 versus 13 per cent) as was the duration of urinary frequency (31 versus 16 per cent), compared to nonstented patients (p less than 0.05). The results suggest that use of an indwelling ureteral stent may not contribute to a higher rate free of stones for the treatment of small to medium sized renal calculi and, in fact, it may make the treatment more uncomfortable for the patient than performing lithotripsy without ureteral stenting. Of course, in selected cases (solitary kidney, large stone burden and aid in stone localization) ureteral stenting has a useful adjunctive role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.     

Ureteroscopy: the initial experience

A prospective study of our first 81 cases of ureteroscopy using extended length rigid endoscopes was performed. Of 55 stone manipulations attempted in 51 patients by 6 endoscopists 38 (69 per cent) were successful. Analyzed sequentially, removal was successful in 12 of 23 attempts (52 per cent) among the initial 40 patients and in 26 of 32 (81 per cent) among the subsequent 41 patients. Of 11 calculi larger than 1 cm. and of 23 positioned above the iliac vessels 7 (64 per cent) and 11 (48 per cent), respectively, were removed successfully. Disimpaction by ureteroscopic manipulation combined with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was successful in 4 cases of upper ureteral calculi not treatable by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy alone. Diagnostic and therapeutic uses of the ureteroscope in addition to treatment of ureteral calculi have included the delineation of ureteral filling defects (9 patients), fulguration of known low grade tumors (4) and dilation of ureteral strictures (5). In 10 patients information was obtained endoscopically that was not possible by standard diagnostic techniques. The direct visual approach to the ureter has distinct advantages over blind ureteral instrumentation.     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with a solitary kidney

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was used to treat 68 patients with renal calculi in a solitary kidney. Epidemiological information, including stone number, size and location, was similar to that of other patients treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Renal function as measured by serum creatinine changed negligibly in the majority of the patients. Three patients had transient serum creatinine elevations greater than 2 mg. per dl. that were caused by obstruction from stone fragments. There were 2 perirenal hematomas that required transfusion. One patient required retrograde manipulation of a ureteral stone before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, while 6 required stone manipulations after therapy for steinstrasses. Of 59 patients evaluable after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 58 (98.3 per cent) had a successful result: 38 (64.4 per cent) were completely free of stones and 20 (33.9 per cent) had clinically insignificant residual fragments. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is effective and safe in a solitary renal unit. We believe that in most patients it is the procedure of choice. Attention to fever, urine output and fragment size perioperatively is crucial.     

Treatment of ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy using the Lithostar device

Shock wave requirements for fragmentation and the ultimate outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) with the Lithostar device were analyzed in 107 renal units with solitary ureteral calculi. In situ treatment was done in 54 stones without prior manipulation and in 15 after failure of endoscopic manipulation. A total of 25 ureteral calculi was treated after bypass with a ureteral catheter or stent and 13 after push back to the pelvicaliceal system. Shock wave requirement for fragmentation was significantly higher for calculi of 101 to 400 mm. X mm. when compared with the requirement for smaller calculi. Shock wave requirement was also significantly higher for patients with similar sized stones treated in the prone compared to the supine position. The average number of shock waves required for disintegration was not significantly different among in situ or any of the manipulation categories of similar sized stone populations. Over-all satisfactory clearance was achieved in 77.5% of the treated ureteral calculi. Clearance status was unaffected by size up to 400 mm. X mm. and the position of the patient during treatment (prone or supine). Clearance of ureteral stones treated in situ without prior manipulation (76.5%) was numerically inferior, although statistically insignificant, to that for successfully manipulated calculi (bypassed 88% and pushed back 92.3%) but it was significantly better than the outcome obtained after failed manipulation (46.2%). ESWL with the Lithostar device is a successful mode of treatment within the entire ureteral length, and a vigorous attempt at push back before lithotripsy is unnecessary.     

Report of the United States cooperative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy effectively fragments urinary calculi in the upper urinary tract and upper ureter. These fragments pass completely by 3 months in 77.4 per cent of the patients with single stones. Risk of obstruction, increased postoperative pain, need for additional urological operations and retained fragments are low for stones less than 1 cm. in size. As the number of stones treated or single stone size increases above 1 cm. the risk for these factors increases. Adjunctive urological surgical management is required in 9 per cent of the patients preoperatively and 8 per cent postoperatively. Only 0.6 per cent of the patients require some type of open operation to resolve the stone problems after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Hemorrhage, obstruction by fragments, severe pain and urinary infection all constitute known complications and require careful urological management of all patients. Hospitalization averages 2 days after treatment and patients usually return to work within a few days after they are discharged from the hospital.     

Flexible ultrasonic lithotriptor and fiberoptic ureterorenoscope: a new approach to ureteral calculi

A newly developed flexible ultrasonic lithotriptor has been used with a fiberoptic ureterorenoscope for removal of upper ureteral and kidney stones. There was an 87.5 per cent success rate in 16 patients. This technique can be used safely and effectively to remove mid and upper ureteral stones not amenable to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or the rigid ureterorenoscope.     

输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石

目的 探讨输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石的治疗效果. 方法 我院2002年8月～2006年4月采用Wolf F8/9.8硬性输尿管镜联合瑞士EMS气压弹道碎石机碎石治疗输尿管结石158例163侧.采用椎管内麻醉,生理盐水作为冲洗液,输尿管镜进入输尿管,到达结石处后,气压弹道击碎并取出结石,并上行观察输尿管全长,术后留置双J管引流.结果手术时间15～90 min,平均40 min.碎石成功率96.9%（158/163）,其中输尿管上段结石碎石成功率86.6%（13/15）,中段结石碎石成功率96.9%（46/49）,下段结石碎石成功率100%（99/99）;2例输尿管上段结石移位至肾盂内,留置双J管后行体外冲击波碎石,其余3例为结石被击碎后,残余小结石进入肾盂,留置双J管后行药物排石或体外冲击波碎石.术中出现输尿管穿孔3例（1.8%）,留置双J管引流后治愈;无输尿管粘膜撕脱、断裂、周围血管脏器损伤等严重并发症,无中转开放手术.125例随访1～38个月,平均15个月,B超或KUB检查,无结石复发. 结论输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石具有碎石成功率高,创伤小,手术时间较短等优点,是治疗输尿管结石的一种安全、有效的方法.     

The role of silicone ureteral stents in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of large renal calculi

Between November 1984 and December 1985 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was used to treat 1,645 kidneys at our institution. A total of 646 kidneys with stone burden greater than 14 mm. was evaluated with regard to the impact of silicone ureteral stents in post-extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy morbidity. Our results indicate that small stones were pulverized and eliminated with minimum morbidity. Larger stones frequently were associated with post-treatment ureteral obstruction by sand and fragments. Of 283 kidneys with stone burden exceeding 25 mm. pretreatment placement of silicone ureteral stents reduced complications from 26 to 7 per cent and auxiliary procedure rates from 15 to 6 per cent. Silicone ureteral stents protect the kidney from ureteral obstruction, and allow for safe and effective extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of large renal calculi.     

Treatment of lower ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

A group of 70 patients presenting with stones in the lower third of the ureter was treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy using a Dornier HM3 lithotriptor. For adequate radiological stone visualization a sitting position was used in 68 patients, while 2 with calculi overlying the sacroiliac joint required placement in the prone position. All but 1 patient had additional endoscopic maneuvers before treatment, consisting of the passage of a Zeiss sling around the stone in 40 and, when this was not possible, a ureteral stent in 29. The over-all success rate was 94.2 per cent (66 of 70 patients) with 3 patients having retained fragments and 1 requiring an open operation. The combination of new positioning techniques and relatively simple endoscopic maneuvers makes treatment of lower ureteral stones feasible and safe with the Dornier lithotriptor.     

Treatment options for proximal ureteral urolithiasis: review and recommendations

The treatment of proximal ureteral calculi has been altered markedly by recent developments in shock wave lithotripsy (bypass, pushback and in situ), ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous stone removal. In an effort to discern the proper role of these newer treatment options with respect to ureterolithotomy (flank approach or dorsal lumbotomy), we completed a multicentered study in which 142 upper ureteral stone patients in 7 different treatment categories were reviewed retrospectively and contacted for convalescence data. From these data we conclude that before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy an upper ureteral stone should be manipulated until it is either pushed back to the kidney or bypassed with a stent. This maneuver should result in successful extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in more than 90 per cent of the patients. For those few patients with an impacted upper ureteral calculus ureterorenoscopy is recommended. Given the presently available treatment modalities we conclude that less than 3 per cent of all upper ureteral calculi will require ureterolithotomy. In this last circumstance a dorsal lumbotomy incision appears to be less morbid and yet as effective as anterior ureterolithotomy.     

Treatment options for ureteral calculi: endourology or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Two therapeutic methods, endourology and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), can be used in the treatment of ureteral calculi. In a retrospective analysis during a 2-year period 236 patients treated with endourological procedures and 71 who underwent ESWL with a Siemens Lithostar were analyzed as to the success rate, effectiveness quotient, complication rate and hospitalization. The mean stone size was 1.12 cm. in the endourology group and 1.03 cm. in the ESWL group. Complete removal of all stone fragments was achieved in 93.6% of the patients treated endourologically and without retreatment. In the ESWL group success was obtained in 90.1%, with an 11.2% retreatment rate. The retreatment rate was higher (25.0%) for calculi in the mid ureter. The group treated endourologically had a better success rate and no retreatment was necessary. On the other hand, the group treated with ESWL had a shorter hospitalization and a lower complication rate. Followup ranged from 11 to 60 months (mean 48 months) in the endourology group and 7 to 29 months (mean 11 months) in the ESWL group. These observations showed that in situ ESWL therapy with the Siemens Lithostar device is the method of choice for upper ureteral stones. Lower ureteral calculi should be treated endoscopically. Mid ureteral stones larger than 1 cm. had better results with endoscopic procedures and those smaller than 1 cm. had better results with ESWL.