Minimally Invasive Surgical Ureterolithotomy Versus Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Large Ureteric Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Literature

Kallidonis, Panagiotis; Ntasiotis, P.; Knoll, Thomas; Sarıca, Kemal; Papatsoris, Athanasios; Somani, Bhaskar K.; Greco, Francesco; Aboumarzouk, Omar; Maestro, M. Álvarez; Sanguedolce, Francesco

doi:10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.006

Cited by 20 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stone migration (8-37%), pain (up to 25.9%), postoperative fever (2-25%), and sepsis (up to 6.2%) are the most frequently encountered [15]. In other series, the percentage for Clavien grade I and II complications were less than 9% for each grade, while Clavien ≥III are occasionally reported [1,16] for URS.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Effective Is Retrograde Semirigid and Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Large Ureteral Stones Equal of or Greater than 15 mm? Results from a Single Center

Kozyrakis¹,

Kratiras²,

Perikleous³

et al. 2019

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To present the results and complications of retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treatment of large ureteral stones. Methods: Nineteen patients were treated for ureteral stones ≥15 mm detected in CT or plain KUB film. Endoscopy was performed with either a semirigid or flexible ureteroscope. Stone fragmentation was performed using a 30 W Holmium laser. Results: The mean stone size was 20.7 mm (range 15–30). The mean duration of the operation was 82 min (45–140). Measures to prevent retropulsion of fragments into the kidney were not routinely applied. A subsequent RIRS during the same session was necessary in 2 cases. After a single procedure a stone free state was achieved in 15 cases (78.9%), while 4 others required a second session (ESWL or second ureterolithotripsy, 2 cases each). In only 1 patient, the stone-free state was not achieved after a 1.2 procedure per patient (overall success rate 94.7%). The mean duration of hospitalization was 1.9 days (range 1–5). Three patients experienced postoperative pyelonephritis and 2 others prolonged hematuria. Conclusion: Endoscopic lithotripsy is safe and effective in treating large ureteral stones. After a single endoscopic procedure, approximately 4 out of 5 patients are expected to become stone free. This rate increases to 95% with a second session of lithotripsy.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Effective Is Retrograde Semirigid and Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Large Ureteral Stones Equal of or Greater than 15 mm? Results from a Single Center

Kozyrakis¹,

Kratiras²,

Perikleous³

et al. 2019

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is especially true for large stones. Dislocation of ureteral stones will prolong operation time, reduce the stone clearance rate and increase medical cost [17, 18]. In our study, perfusion and suctioning were carried out simultaneously, large stone fragments are sucked out when withdrawing the ureteroscope.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study on the clinical application of a patented perfusion and suctioning platform and ureteral access sheath in the treatment of large ureteral stones below L4 level

Song

et al. 2018

Int Urol Nephrol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a patented perfusion and suctioning platform and ureteral access sheath in the treatment of large ureteral stones (≥ 1.5 cm) below L4 level. Methods We recruited 122 patients with large ureteral stones below L4 level at our hospital from December 2014 to June 2017. The patients were randomly divided into the study and control groups. Multiple operative and perioperative parameters were compared between the two groups. Results The study group had shorter operation time, less cases of postoperative fever, lower serum levels of PCT, IL-6 and BET within 24 h after surgery, as well as less number of cases receiving secondary surgery than the control group. Moreover, the former had a significantly higher stone clearance rate than the latter ( P < 0.05; t -test or χ 2 test). Conclusions The patented perfusion and suctioning platform and ureteral access sheath are safe and effective in treating large ureteral stones (≥ 1.5 cm) below L4 level.

show abstract

“…Wang et al compared rigid URSL and PCNL (26), and concluded that patients who underwent PCNL were associated with higher SFR rates, but longer operation times and hospital stays, as compared to those who underwent rigid URSL. Furthermore, two metaanalyses from Europe (27) and Brazil (28) on seven and six RCTs, respectively, independently identified that the SFR was higher for LU than for URSL, while the operation and hospitalization times were more favorable in URSL than in LU. Moreover, some studies have compared outcomes between three or more modalities using pooled analyses (29)(30)(31).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of antegrade and retrograde ureterolithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Antegrade percutaneous ureterolithotripsy (URSL) could be a treatment option for large and/or impacted proximal ureteral stones, which are difficult to treat. To review the current approach and treatment outcomes and to compare the efficacy of retrograde and antegrade URSL for large proximal ureteral stones, we evaluated the unique perspectives of both surgical modalities.Methods: This systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed in July 2020. Articles on human studies and treatment of ureteral stones with URSL were extracted from the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the Japan Medical Abstracts Society databases without any language restrictions. The risks of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) were assessed using the Cochrane risk of tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studiesof Interventions tool, respectively.Results: A total of 10 studies, including seven RCTs and three non-RCTs, were selected for the analysis; 433 and 420 cases underwent retrograde and antegrade URSL, respectively. The stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly higher in antegrade URSL than in retrograde URSL (SFR ratio: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.12-1.22; P<0.001), while the hospital stay was significantly longer in antegrade URSL than in retrograde URSL (standardized mean difference: 2.56, 95% CI: 0.67-4.46; P=0.008). There were no significant differences in the operation time and the overall complication rate between the two approaches.Conclusions: Despite the heterogeneity of data and bias limitations, this latest evidence reflects real practice data, which may be useful for decision making.

show abstract

Minimally Invasive Surgical Ureterolithotomy Versus Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Large Ureteric Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Literature

Cited by 20 publications

References 21 publications

How Effective Is Retrograde Semirigid and Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Large Ureteral Stones Equal of or Greater than 15 mm? Results from a Single Center

How Effective Is Retrograde Semirigid and Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Large Ureteral Stones Equal of or Greater than 15 mm? Results from a Single Center

A study on the clinical application of a patented perfusion and suctioning platform and ureteral access sheath in the treatment of large ureteral stones below L4 level

Comparison of antegrade and retrograde ureterolithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About