Lessons Learned from Patients with Grossen Steinstrassen

  • John L. Weinerth
  • James M. Flatt
  • Culley C. CarsonIII


Experience with 19 patients (25 ureters) who suffered the complication of grossen steinstrassen (≧ one-third of ureteral length) has led to lessons regarding the management of this complication as well as to insights into patient presentation, metabolic consequences, and the efficiency of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. Very few symptoms were present in a large percentage of patients despite urinary obstruction, decreased renal function, infection, and in several cases, impending sepsis. Large stone burdens, bilateral treatments, inability to debulk stone burden prior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL*) and unexpected fragment movement were predisposing factors in the development of this complication. Double-pigtail stents and percutaneous nephrostomy did not always prevent or resolve the problem. Combined use of percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) and ureteroscopic ultrasonic/laser lithotripsy appears to be the most effective treatment modality in those patients who fail to pass the stone material following a period of brief observation. This approach can be combined under appropriate circumstances with a secondary ESWL or percutaneous nephrolithotripsy treatment in the staged management of complex upper urinary tract calculous disease.


Shock Wave Lithotripsy Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Renal Colic Ureteral Stents Serum Creatinine Elevation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Lingeman JE, Newman DM, Mertz JHO, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the Methodist Hospital of Indiana experience. J Urol 135: 1134, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schulze H, Hertle L, Graff J, et al: Combined treatment of branch calculi by percutaneous nephrolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 135: 1138, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaussy C, Schmiedt E, Jocham D, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the treatment of urolithiasis. Urology 23:59, 1984 (special issue).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaussy C, Fuchs GJ, Kahn R, et al: Transurethral ultrasonic ureterolithotripsy using a solid wire probe. Urology 29: 531, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tegtmeyer CJ, Kellum CD, Jenkins A, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: interventional radiologic solutions to associated problems. Radiology 131: 587, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riehle RA: Selective use of ureteral stents before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Clin NAm 15: 499, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fuchs GJ: Ultrasonic lithotripsy in the ureter. Urol Clin NAm 15: 347, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dretler SP: Management of steinstrasse. Endourology 1: 1, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • John L. Weinerth
    • 1
  • James M. Flatt
    • 1
  • Culley C. CarsonIII
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of UrologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations