Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Difficult Cases in Endourology pp 211–223Cite as

Ureteroscopy for Upper Ureteral Stones: Overcoming the Difficulties of the Rigid Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The most popular management for upper ureteral stones is shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) because of its noninvasiveness, low morbidity, and high success rates (85–93 %). With the development of smaller caliber semirigid ureteroscopes (URSs) and the improvement of instrumentation, URS became safer and highly effective as a treatment modality for proximal ureteral stones.

Although URS has major advantages over SWL in its high success rate at a single session, it has potential intraoperative and postoperative complications, so it requires considerable skill to increase its effectiveness and decrease complications.

In this chapter, we will discuss the difficulties that are commonly encountered during the procedure including the less common, even rare, difficulties and the ways to overcome them or avoid them if possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Segura JW, Preminger GM, Glenn M, Assimos DG, Dretler SP, Khan RI, Lingeman JE, et al. Ureteral stones clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1997;158:1951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Preminger GM, Tiselius H, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck C, Gallucci M, et al. Guidelines for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol. 2007;178:2418.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kijvikai K, Haleblian GE, Preminger GM, de la Rosette J. Shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi: an old discussion revisited. J Urol. 2007;178:1157–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Andreoni C, Afane J, Olweny E, et al. Flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: first-line therapy for proximal ­ureteral and renal calculi in the morbidly obese and super obese patient. J Endourol. 2001;15:493–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Watterson J, Girvan A, Cook A, et al. Safety and efficacy of holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in patients with bleeding diatheses. J Urol. 2002;168:442–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lam J, Greene T, Gupta M. Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2002;167:1972–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. El-Hefnawy AS, El-Nahas AR, El-Tabey NA, et al. Bilateral same-session ureteroscopy for treatment of ureteral calculi: critical analysis of risk factors. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2011;45:97–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lifshitz D, Lingeman J. Ureteroscopy as a first-line intervention for ureteral calculi in pregnancy. J Endourol. 2002;16:19–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Watterson J, Girvan A, Beiko D, et al. Ureteroscopy and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy: an emerging definitive management strategy for symptomatic ureteral calculi in pregnancy. Urology. 2002;60:383–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Thomas J, DeMarco R, Donohoe J, et al. Pediatric ureteroscopic stone management. J Urol. 2005;174:1072–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rapp D, Gerber G. Ureteroscopy. In: Nakada S, Pearle M, editors. Advanced endourology: the complete ­clinical guide. Totowa: Humana Press Inc; 2006. p. 87–104. Chapter 6.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chow G, Patterson D, Blute M, et al. Ureteroscopy: effect of technology and technique on clinical practice. J Urol. 2003;170:99–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bagley DH, Kuo RL, Zeltser IS. An update on ureteroscopic instrumentation for the treatment of urolithiasis. Curr Opin Urol. 2004;14:99–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Abdelrahim AF, Abdelmaguid A, Abuzeid H, et al. Rigid ureteroscopy for ureteral stones: factors associated with intraoperative adverse events. J Endourol. 2008;22:277–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yaycioglu O, Guvel S, Kilinc F, et al. Results with 7.5F versus 10F rigid ureteroscopes in treatment of ureteral calculi. Urology. 2004;64:643–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Youssef R, El-Nahas A, El-Assmy A, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi (<20 mm): a comparative matched-pair study. J Urol. 2009;73:1184–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Leijte JA, Oddens JR, Lock TM. Holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteric calculi: predictive factors for complications and success. J Endourol. 2008;22:257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Piergiovanni M, Desgrandchamps F, Cochand P, et al. Ureteral and bladder lesions after ballistic, ultrasonic, electrohydraulic, or laser lithotripsy. J Endourol. 1994;8:293–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sun Y, Wang L, Liao G, et al. Pneumatic lithotripsy versus laser lithotripsy in the endoscopic treatment of ureteral calculi. J Endourol. 2001;15:587–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kupeli B, Biri H, Isen K, et al. Treatment of ureteral stones: comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endourologic alternatives. Eur Urol. 1998;34:474–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Chenven ES, Bagley DH. Retrieval and releasing capabilities of stone basket designs in vitro. J Endourol. 2005;19:204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee H, Ryan T, Teichman J, et al. Stone retropulsion during holmium:YAG lithotripsy. J Urol. 2003;169:881–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahmed M, Pedro R, Kieley S, et al. Systematic evaluation of ureteral occlusion devices: insertion, deployment, stone migration, and extraction. Urology. 2009;73:976–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dretler S. The stone cone: a new generation of basketry. J Urol. 2001;165:1593–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Pauletter H, Sameer S, Perry K, et al. Assessment of novel ureteral occlusion device and comparison with stone cone in prevention of stone fragment migration during lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2005;19:200–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Beiko D, Denstedt J. Advances in ureterorenoscopy. Urol Clin North Am. 2007;34:397–408.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Knoll T, Michel M. Ureterorenoscopy. In: Hohenfellner R, Stolzenburg J, editors. Manual endourology. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag; 2005. p. 105–15. Chapter 12.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Cybulski P, Joo H, Honey R. Ureteroscopy: anesthetic considerations. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;11:31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kabalin JN. Anatomy of the retroperitoneum and kidney. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Stamey TA, Vaughan Jr E, editors. Campbell’s urology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1992. p. 3–39.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Harmon W, Sershon P, Blute M, et al. Ureteroscopy: current practice and long-term complications. J Urol. 1997;157:28–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Denstedt J, Wollin T, Sofer M, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing non-stented versus stented ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Urol. 2001;165:1419–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Byrne R, Auge B, Kourambas J, et al. Routine ureteral stenting is not necessary after ureteroscopy and ureteropyeloscopy: a randomized trial. J Endourol. 2002;16:9–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cheung M, Lee F, Leung Y, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial on ureteral stenting after ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy. J Urol. 2003;169:1257–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Netto N, Ikonomidis J, Zillo C. Routine ureteral stenting after ureteroscopy for ureteral lithiasis: is it really necessary? J Urol. 2001;166:1252–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chen Y, Chen J, Wong W, et al. Is ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy? A prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2002;167:1977–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hollenbeck B, Schuster T, Seifman B, et al. Identifying patients who are suitable for stentless ureteroscopy following treatment of urolithiasis. J Urol. 2003;170:103–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bolton DM. Chapter 28: Techniques in rigid ureteroscopy. In: Smith AD, editor. Smith’s textbook of endourology. St Louis: Quality Medical Publishing; 2006. p. 233–6.

    Google Scholar 

  38. O’Connor R, Gerber G. Management of entrapped ureteral stone baskets. Tech Urol. 2000;6:231–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Low R, George D. Removal of the entrapped basketed ureteral calculus: a novel technique. J Urol. 2000;163:1863–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Maheshwari P, Oswal A, Andankar M, et al. Is antegrade ureteroscopy better than retrograde ureteroscopy for impacted large upper ureteral calculi? J Endourol. 1999;13:441–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Chen C, Wu C, Shee J, et al. Holmium:YAG lasertripsy with semirigid ureterorenoscope for upper-ureteral stones >2 cm. J Endourol. 2005;19:780–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. El-Nahas A, Eraky I, El-Assmy A, et al. Percutaneous treatment of large upper tract stones after urinary diversion. Urology. 2006;68:500–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rhee B, Bretan P, Stoller M. Urolithiasis in renal and combined pancreas/renal transplant recipients. J Urol. 1999;161:1458–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Raza A, Smith G, Moussa S, et al. Ureteroscopy in the management of pediatric urinary tract calculi. J Endourol. 2005;19:151–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Park H, Park M, Park T. Two-year experience with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopic manipulation. J Endourol. 1998;12:501–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Strohmaier W, Schubert G, Rosenkranz T, et al. Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Eur Urol. 1999;36:376–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Sofer M, Watterson J, Wollin T, et al. Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi in 598 patients. J Urol. 2002;167:31–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Basiri A, Simforoosh N, Ziaee A, et al. Retrograde, antegrade, and laparoscopic approaches for the management of large, proximal ureteral stones: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol. 2008;22:2677–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Grasso M, Beaghler M, Loisides P. The case for primary endoscopic management of upper urinary tract calculi: cost and outcome assessment of 112 primary ureteral calculi. Urology. 1995;45:372–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, El Gomhoria Street, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt

    Tamer S. Barakat M.D., Ahmed R. El-Nahas M.D., Ahmed M. Shoma M.D. & Ahmed A. Shokeir M.D., Ph.D., FEBU

Authors
  1. Tamer S. Barakat M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmed R. El-Nahas M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmed M. Shoma M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmed A. Shokeir M.D., Ph.D., FEBU
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tamer S. Barakat M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fac. Medicine, Dept. Surgery, Kuwait University, Safat, Kuwait

    Ahmed M. Al-Kandari

  2. , Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Dr Virendra Desai Road, Nadiad, 387 001, India

    Mahesh Desai

  3. , Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Gomhoria Street, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt

    Ahmed A. Shokeir

  4. , Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Gomhoria Street, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt

    Ahmed M. Shoma

  5. , Smith Institute for Urology, Long Island Jewish Health System, New York, 11040, USA

    Arthur D. Smith

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barakat, T.S., El-Nahas, A.R., Shoma, A.M., Shokeir, A.A. (2013). Ureteroscopy for Upper Ureteral Stones: Overcoming the Difficulties of the Rigid Approach. In: Al-Kandari, A., Desai, M., Shokeir, A., Shoma, A., Smith, A. (eds) Difficult Cases in Endourology. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-083-8_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-083-8_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-082-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-083-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation