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.     

An evaluation of ureteral laser lithotripsy: 225 consecutive patients

We treated 225 patients with 227 ureteral calculi (5 steinstrasse) via the pulsed dye laser with 9.5F rigid, 7.2F semirigid and flexible, steerable ureteroscopes. The 222 calculi (excluding steinstrasse) were fragmented by laser alone in 141 cases (64%), laser and a basket in 30 (13%), and laser and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 33 (15%). The laser failed in 18 cases (8%). Of the 222 calculi 165 were impacted. Of 29 impacted upper ureteral calculi 15 were treated by laser disimpaction and fragmentation, 13 by laser disimpaction followed by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and 1 by an operation. Of 42 mid ureteral calculi (30 impacted) 24 were treated successfully by laser fragmentation and 14 by fragmentation followed by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, while 4 failed laser therapy. Among 151 lower ureteral and tunnel calculi laser fragmentation was successful in 132 cases (87%), laser followed by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was successful in 6 and 13 failed laser treatment. There were no ureteral strictures and no ureteral injuries related to use of the laser. The pulsed dye laser is safe and effective treatment for impacted upper and mid ureteral calculi, small mid ureteral calculi in female patients, and lower ureteral calculi in male and female patients. Use of the laser in conjunction with other endourological methods resulted in the need for an operation in 2 of 225 patients (0.9%) with ureteral calculi.     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment of calculi in horseshoe kidneys

From June 1985 to November 1986, 17 patients with calculi in horseshoe kidneys presented to our hospital for evaluation and possible treatment with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Of these patients 14 were treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; the calculi in 2 could not be localized and focused at the F2 focal point, and 1 was asymptomatic and has been followed conservatively. Four patients required repeat extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Adjunctive procedures included preoperative retrograde catheter placement (5 patients), postoperative percutaneous nephrostolithotomy (1), ureteroscopy for ureteral fragments (2) and placement of a double pigtail stent (1). Of 14 patients 11 (79 per cent) have been rendered free of fragments with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and adjunctive measures as needed. We conclude that most patients with calculi in a horseshoe kidney can be managed primarily with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.     

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 of ureteral calculi by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at a multi-use center

We reviewed our experience with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy therapy in 138 patients who presented with mid and upper ureteral calculi. In the patients who had successful stone manipulation back into the renal collecting system the success rate was significantly higher compared to that for stones treated primarily within the ureter (92.8 versus 80.8 per cent, p less than 0.05). Among the stones treated within the ureter the success rates appeared to be similar for stones treated in situ (83.3 per cent) compared to those treated when a catheter could be placed alongside the calculus (79.3 per cent). Higher voltage and more shock waves were administered to stones treated within the ureter compared to stones that were manipulated back into the kidney. However, this increase power did not enhance the success rate. In addition, it appears that a plain film of the abdomen obtained within 24 hours of lithotripsy treatment is a good predictor of success as defined by the rate free of stones at 6 weeks of followup. Our results from a community-based multi-use lithotripsy center suggest that ureteral stone manipulation should be attempted before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for mid and upper ureteral calculi.     

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.     

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.     

输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术治疗上尿路结石梗阻致急性肾功能衰竭的体会

目的探讨输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术治疗上尿路结石梗阻致急性肾功能衰竭的疗效。方法2005年4月至2007年8月对25例上尿路结石梗阻致急性肾功能衰竭（血肌酐大于500μmol／L）患者行输尿管镜检查并行钬激光碎石术。结果25例患者肌酐恢复正常或接近正常，18例输尿管结石一次取净，5例经体外冲击波碎石后结石排出，2例碎石后肾盂残留小结石经121服排石药自行排出。结论对上尿路结石梗阻致急性肾功能衰竭患者，输尿管镜检查辅以钬激光碎石创伤小、疗效好，并可同时处理双侧输尿管结石。     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as monotherapy of staghorn renal calculi: 3 years of experience

From May 1985 to February 1988, 61 patients with renal staghorn calculi (41 with incomplete C4 and 20 with complete C5 lesions) underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy. Of the patients 37 were treated without preoperative Double-J* stenting, while 24 underwent Double-J stenting before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Of the patients with incomplete staghorn calculi (C4) and a preoperative ureteral stent 85% were free of stones after 6 months in contrast to only 52.4% of those without a stent and 85.7% of those with infected C4 calculi who underwent preoperative stenting. Hospitalization decreased from 17.7 days in patients without a stent to 14.2 days after stenting, followed by the number of auxiliary procedures (nephrostomy, Zeiss loop and ureteroscopy) and postoperative complications. Complete staghorn calculi (C5) without a preoperative stent had the smallest success rate of stone elimination: only 43.7% of the patients were free of stones after 6 months with a rehospitalization rate of 62.5%. For incomplete staghorn renal calculi (C4) extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy with a preoperative Double-J stent is the noninvasive method that offers excellent stone elimination (85%), comparable to the results of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (with or without complementary extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy) and anatrophic nephrolithotomy.     

输尿管导引鞘在Ⅲ度以上前列腺增生患者输尿管中下段结石清除术中的应用

目的探讨为避免同期或分期先处理前列腺增生, 将输尿管导引鞘应用于Ⅲ度以上前列腺增生患者输尿管中下段结石清除术中的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析2018年4月至2020年12月于浙江衢化医院采用留置输尿管导引鞘+输尿管硬镜钬激光碎石取石术处理的27例Ⅲ度以上前列腺增生合并输尿管中下段结石患者的临床资料。患者均为男性, 年龄(69.7±12.8)岁(范围:55～87岁), 经直肠超声测量前列腺体积为(94.8±16.2)cm3(范围:85～186 cm3)。术中先留置输尿管导引鞘, 再从导引鞘引入输尿管硬镜, 进行钬激光碎石取石术, 并记录术中术后并发症。术后1、2个月复查泌尿系X线片或CT尿路造影了解结石残余、输尿管狭窄等情况, 评价临床疗效。结果 27例患者均顺利一期留置输尿管导引鞘并在输尿管硬镜下行钬激光碎石取石术, 术中及术后无输尿管撕脱穿孔、肾周血肿、感染性休克、严重血尿、尿潴留、医源性输尿管狭窄等重大并发症。术后1个月排石率92.6%(25/27), 术后2个月排石率为100%(27/27)。2例患者由于术前结石最大径>20 mm, 术后存在结石残余, 接受体外冲击波碎石...     

电磁式体外冲击波碎石的应用体会和输尿管镜碎石治疗输尿管结石的差别

目的比较电磁式体外冲击波碎石与输尿管镜碎石治疗输尿管结石的效果。方法选择我科室2015年7月至2017年10月就诊的150例输尿管结石患者,随机分为2组,体外冲击波组75例采用电磁式体外冲击波碎石术治疗,输尿管镜组75例采用输尿管镜碎石术治疗,对比两组临床疗效、结石大小、手术时间及并发症发生情况。结果体外冲击波组结石直径1 cm碎石成功率为95.24%,输尿管镜组结石直径1 cm为73.33%,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05),结石直径≥1 cm且2 cm和结石直径≥2 cm两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05),体外冲击波组总碎石成功率合计88.00%,输尿管镜组为72.00%,两组差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);体外冲击波组术后并发症发生率为9.33%,输尿管镜组为21.33%,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论电磁式体外冲击波碎石治疗对于1.0 cm的输尿管结石效果较好,且减少并发症发生。     

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.     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL)

There hundred sixteen patients with symptomatic upper and lower urinary tract calculi underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) at the Ohio Kidney Stone Center during the first three months. Ninety-seven percent of the stones were treated with one ESWL session. Twenty-four percent of the treatments required cystoscopy with ureteral stent placement for manipulation of stones to facilitate ESWL. Complications were minimal, less than three percent.     

Intracorporeal Lithotripsy with the Swiss Lithoclast

Background: In addition to currently available modalities of intracorporeal lithotripsy (ultrasonic, electrohydraulic, and laser), a new ballistic lithotriptor known as the Swiss Lithoclast has recently gained attention. This study reports our experience with the Swiss Lithoclast in the endoscopic management of urinary calculi.
Methods: A total of 51 patients with urinary calculi were treated with the Swiss Lithoclast; one patient with a renal calculus, 28 with ureteral calculi, and 22 with lower urinary tract (bladder, urethra and Kock pouch) calculi.
Results: The Lithoclast successfully fragmented 94% of the calculi, independent of stone composition. Complete failure of fragmentation was not encountered. In six of the 10 upper ureteral calculi, stone fragments were pushed up into the calyces. Adjunctive extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for residual fragments was performed in six cases. The stone-free rate at one and three months was 84% and 88%, respectively. There were no intraoperative or long-term complications directly related to the use of this device.
Conclusion: The Swiss Lithoclast is a safe and effective means of intracorporeal lithotripsy. Although suitable for mid and lower ureteral stones, the device has a risk of stone push-up in patients with upper ureteral stones.     

Primary endoscopic treatment of ureteric calculi. A review of 378 cases.

AIM OF THE STUDY: In the post-ESWL period, ureteroscopy represented the solution giving a second choice in the treatment of ureteral calculi in case of failure of extracorporeal lithotripsy. The aim of this study is to review a wide series of ureteral stones in which ureteroscopy combined with endoscopic lithotripsy can be chosen as the first approach for the treatment of ureteral calculi. METHODS: Between January 1994 and September 1997, 378 patients underwent ureteroscopy and endoscopic lithotripsy for ureteral stones with a miniscope associated with either a pneumatic or electropneumatic lithotriptor. Three different miniscopes were used: Olympus (8 Fr), Wolf (7 Fr) and Circon Acmi (7.7 Fr). 238 patients were male and 140 were female. The stones were localized in the upper tract of the ureter in 62 cases (16.4%), 96 (25.3%) in the mid ureter and 220 (58. 3%) in the lower ureter. RESULTS: A complete stone fragmentation with spontaneous expulsion of the fragments occurred in 354 patients (93.6%). In 22 patients (5.8%) the stones were accidentally pushed up and successfully underwent ESWL. In 38 patients (10%) the fragments were completely removed by basket. A single J polyethylene catheter was placed in 21 (5.5%) and a JJ stent in 147 patients (38. 8%). The operative time ranged from 10 to 60 min, with an average time span of 32. In 22 cases (5.8%) an iterative ureteroscopy for stenosis or incomplete fragmentation was needed. Five cases (1.3%) of ureteral perforation were successfully treated by JJ stent, and only 1 case of ureteral avulsion (upper ureter) was treated by open surgery. In the attempt of overcoming an ureteral stenosis, we had 1 case (0.2%) of ureteral reimplantation. One patient (0.2%) underwent ureterolithotomy for an extremely narrow stenosis just before the ureteropelvic junction. No relevant complication was recorded in the postoperative period. Patients were dismissed after 1- 4 days (average 1.9). Up until now, no case of postoperative ureteral stricture has been observed, although we were not able to carry out a specific follow-up in all our patients. CONCLUSIONS: Ureteroscopy with miniscopes has a high success rate (93.6%) with low morbidity and can be given as a primary approach in the management of ureteral calculi. In the lumbar ureter (especially in women) this technique can represent a good alternative to ESWL in the treatment of obstructing stones (which need stenting) or when the patient asks for a 'one-shot' treatment.     

输尿管软镜钬激光碎石治疗重复输尿管畸形合并上尿路结石5例报告

目的探讨输尿管软镜钬激光碎石治疗重复输尿管畸形合并上尿路结石的有效性和安全性。方法回顾2012年7月至2014年5月我院收治的5例采用输尿管软镜钬激光治疗的重复输尿管畸形合并上尿路结石患者的临床及随访资料,结合文献资料进行分析。男性2例,女性3例;平均年龄32.2(25~40)岁;上位肾结石1例,下位肾结石1例,输尿管上段结石2例,输尿管上段结石合并下位肾结石1例。结石大小平均1.5(1.0~2.2)cm。结果 4例患者成功碎石,1例因输尿管狭窄上鞘失败改为经皮肾镜碎石术。术后1个月结石完全排净率为75%(3/4),1例残留结石经体外冲击波碎石后结石排出。所有患者术中及术后无输尿管损伤,无明显出血、发热及尿脓毒血症发生。随访3~20个月,结石无复发,患者的肾积水均有不同程度的改善。结论输尿管软镜钬激光碎石治疗重复输尿管畸形合并上尿路结石安全、有效。     

输尿管上段结石经输尿管镜碎石失败66例再治疗经验

目的总结输尿管上段结石输尿管镜下碎石失败者再治疗经验。方法2004年2月-2006年9月，66例输尿管镜下碎石治疗输尿管上段结石失败患者，包括因结石下段输尿管扭曲，结石下方输尿管炎性狭窄、肉芽组织形成或包裹结石致输尿管镜下未见结石40例，碎石时结石漂人肾盂26例，改行微创经皮肾镜取石术（M—PCNL）或体外冲击波碎石（ESWL）。结果48例直接改行M—PCNL，均一次将结石完全取净；18例留置双J管1周后行1—4次ESWL后联合药物排石，1个月后拔除双J管，复查KUB、B超，14例结石完全排净，4例结石未击碎排净改行M—PCNL，均一次将残余结石完全取净。术中、术后未出现严重并发症。结论M—PCNL取石损伤小，结石清除率高，是输尿管镜下输尿管上段结石碎石失败的有效微创治疗方法。     

Pediatric ureteroscopic stone management

PURPOSE: We reviewed our experience of 5 years using ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy to treat stone disease in prepubertal children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all ureteroscopic procedures performed in prepubertal children. RESULTS: A total of 33 ureteroscopic procedures were performed in 29 prepubertal children (15 males and 14 females) 5 to 144 months old (mean age 94 months, including 3 patients 24 months or younger). Stones were located in the renal pelvis in 1 case (3%), proximal ureter in 3 (9%), mid ureter in 5 (15%) and distal ureter in 24 (73%). Stone size ranged from 3 to 14 mm (mean 6). Eight patients required balloon dilation of the ureteral orifice. Followup ranged from 1 to 66 months (mean 11). Stone-free rate after initial ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy was 88%, with all distal and mid ureteral stones (3 to 9 mm, mean 5) successfully treated. Three patients with proximal ureteral stones 7 to 14 mm in diameter (mean 10.3) required a secondary procedure (repeat ureteroscopy in 2 and shock wave lithotripsy in 1) to become stone-free. One patient with cystinuria and a renal pelvic stone measuring 14 mm required shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. There were no major complications of ureteroscopy but there was 1 case of extravasation at the ureterovesical junction after balloon dilation that was managed with stent placement. CONCLUSIONS: Although more patients and longer followup are needed, ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy is an excellent first line treatment for children with stones in whom conservative therapy fails, especially those with distal and mid ureteral stones. Patients with a stone burden of 10 mm or greater, especially in the proximal ureter, likely will require a secondary procedure to become stone-free.     

输尿管封堵取石导管在输尿管上段结石中的应用

目的探讨输尿管封堵取石导管联合钬激光碎石治疗输尿管上段结石的临床效果。 方法回顾性分析2016年4月至2017年3月在我院诊断为输尿管上段结石并行输尿管镜碎石术患者病例资料,导管组采用输尿管封堵取石导管联合钬激光碎石,对照组仅采用钬激光碎石,比较两组手术效果,并采用Logistic回归分析可造成结石残留率增高的因素。 结果两组患者术前情况差异无统计学意义,全部患者均完成碎石,其中导管组70例患者中58例一期成功碎石取石,12例患者术后有结石残留,有2例需体外碎石。对照组51例患者中30例一期成功碎石取石,20例患者术后有结石残留,有13例需体外碎石。两组术中术后均无严重并发症发生。结石大小、肾积水程度、输尿管扩张程度可影响碎石成功率。 结论输尿管封堵取石导管联合钬激光碎石是治疗输尿管上段结石安全有效的方法,能显著减少结石移位并提高碎石成功率,输尿管扩张程度是影响碎石成功率最主要因素。     

Pulsed dye laser fragmentation of ureteral calculi: a review of the first 50 cases performed at Virginia Mason Medical Center

During the preceding 2 1/2 years 50 patients have undergone laser fragmentation of ureteral calculi at our medical center. Of these 50 patients 48 (96%) became free of stones without the need for an open operation: 44 (88%) were managed in 1 setting and 4 required adjunctive extracorporeal shock wave or ultrasonic lithotripsy, or a repeat session with the laser. Two patients (4%) eventually required an open operation: 1 required ureterolithotomy for a large impacted stone overlying the bony pelvis after a ureteroscope could not be advanced to this level and 1 had a good initial result with the laser but a persistent ureteral stricture developed and he required ureteroureterostomy 4 months later. Both open procedures were necessitated by mid ureteral stones, and the ureteral stricture was believed to be related to ureteroscopy and the impacted nature of the stone, rather than any damage by the laser probe.