We present our experience with the use of the ureteral access sheath for the management of small impacted lower third ureteral stones, in comparison with more standard techniques. Ninety-eight consecutive patients, aged 18-73 years (mean 48.5), with small (diameter < or = 10 mm) impacted lower third ureteral stones (< 5 mm in 56, and 5-10 mm in 42 patients) were randomly managed with either a 12/14F coaxial ureteral dilator/sheath and a 7.5F flexible ureteroscope (group A; 48 patients), or with balloon dilatation and the 7.5F flexible ureteroscope (group B; 50 patients). In both groups, stones were grasped and extracted with a basket, and when necessary they were disintegrated with a 1.9F electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) probe. Postoperatively, excretory urography was performed at 1 month and patients were followed-up for 1 year. The mean operative time was 45.5 min in group A, and 58.5 min in group B (P<0.05). EHL was performed in 16 (33.3%) patients of group A, and in 12 (24%) patients of group B. In group B, balloon dilatation was performed in 28 (56%) patients. Ureteral perforation was revealed in 4 (8%) patients of group B. The follow-up imaging tests showed stone-free status in 46 (95.8%) patients of group A and in all (100%) patients of group B. No long-term complications were recorded. Endoscopic management of small impacted lower third ureteral stones with the ureteral access sheath is a quicker and safer procedure, in comparison with the more standard approach, bearing comparable efficacy.
We believe that multiple factors should be considered when deciding the most appropriate approach to distal ureteral calculi. In situ SWL provides optimal first-line treatment for calculi < 10 mm, whereas URS is better reserved for stones >10 mm.
Retrograde calculus migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy remains a problem in 5-40% of cases. We assessed the safety and efficacy of the Stone Cone device, in comparison with the standard flat wire basket. A total of 56 consecutive patients with ureteral calculi, suitable for ureteroscopic extraction and/or lithotripsy, where included in this prospective study. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups. In group A (30 patients), we used the Stone Cone, while in group B (26 patients) we used the standard flat wire basket. The Stone Cone was placed through a cystoscope under fluoroscopic guidance, or when necessary under direct ureteroscopic control. Whenever necessary, intracorporeal electrohydraulic lithotripsy took place in both groups. Statistical significance was assessed by the paired t-test. The mean operative time was 48.5 min in group A, and 42.4 min in group B. Intact calculus extraction was possible in 16.6% in group A, and in 7.6% in group B (P< 0.01). Retrograde stone migration was revealed in 23% in group B only (P < 0.001). Also, residual fragments > 3 mm were recorded in 30.7% in group B only (P < 0.001). None of the patients in group A required auxiliary procedures, in contrary to 23% in group B (P < 0.001). No major complications were recorded in group A, while in group B a case of major ureteral mucosal abrasion was recorded. The Stone Cone is safe and efficient in preventing retrograde stone migration and in minimizing residual fragments during ureteroscopic lithotripsy in comparison with the flat wire basket.
Percutaneous endopyelotomy should be the treatment of choice for intrinsic ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty, although technically challenging, provides excellent results for extrinsic or complicated ureteropelvic junction stenosis.
Percutaneous endopyelotomy should be the treatment of choice for intrinsic ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty, although technically challenging, provides excellent results for extrinsic or complicated ureteropelvic junction stenosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.