Introduction: While negative ureteroscopy (URS) can be considered as an unnecessary procedure with medico-legal consequences, this avoids radiation from repeat CT scan and sometimes may be the only way to reassure patients with ongoing symptoms. We wanted to analyze our predictors and results of negative URS for treatment of ureteric stones. Methods and Materials: Between March 2012 and August 2018, data on consecutive patients with ureteric stones undergoing a primary URS (without a pre-operative stent) were prospectively collected for patient demographics and outcomes. Comparison was done for patients with diagnostic and therapeutic primary URS for ureteric stones. Patients with renal stones were excluded from the study. Results: A total of 270 patients underwent URS for ureteric stones during the study period of which 35 (13%) had a negative diagnostic URS. The patients who had negative URS were younger (p = 0.001), had smaller stones (p < 0.001), and more stones located in the distal ureter or vesico-ureteric junction (VUJ; p= 0.036). None of the patients who underwent negative URS had a postoperative stent inserted or any complications. Conclusion: Although the rates of negative URS should be as low as possible, it seems to be safe and reassures patients with on-going symptoms. Based on our data, patients with small distal ureteric or VUJ stones should undergo a repeat imaging to avoid this unnecessary procedure. Informed consent, patient counseling, and appropriate up-to-date imaging seem to be key to minimizing negative diagnostic URS.

Keywords:
Negative, Stoneless, Diagnostic, Ureteroscopy, Ureteric, Stone
1.
Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK. Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review.
J Endourol
. 2017 Jun;31(6):547–56.
2.
Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2014 Nov;(11):CD007044.
3.
Drake T, Grivas N, Dabestani S, Knoll T, Lam T, Maclennan S, et al. What are the benefits and harms of ureteroscopy compared with shock-wave lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral stones? A systematic review.
Eur Urol
. 2017 Nov;72(5):772–86.
4.
Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones.
Eur Urol
. 2015 Apr;67(4):612–6.
5.
Sourtzis S, Thibeau JF, Damry N, Raslan A, Vandendris M, Bellemans M. Radiologic investigation of renal colic: unenhanced helical CT compared with excretory urography.
AJR Am J Roentgenol
. 1999 Jun;172(6):1491–4.
6.
Willis CE, Slovis TL. The ALARA concept in radiographic dose reduction.
Radiol Technol
. 2004 Nov-Dec;76(2):150–2.
7.
Katafigiotis I, Sabler IM, Heifetz EM, Rosenfeld A, Stavros S, Lorber A, et al. “Stoneless” or negative ureteroscopy: a reality in the endourologic routine or avoidable source of frustration? Estimating the risk factors for a negative ureteroscopy.
J Endourol
. 2018 Sep;32(9):825–30.
8.
Lamberts RW, Conti SL, Leppert JT, Elliott CS. Defining the rate of negative ureteroscopy in the general population treated for upper tract urinary stone disease.
J Endourol
. 2017 Mar;31(3):266–71.
9.
White WM, Johnson EB, Zite NB, Beddies J, Krambeck AE, Hyams E, et al. Predictive value of current imaging modalities for the detection of urolithiasis during pregnancy: a multicenter, longitudinal study.
J Urol
. 2013 Mar;189(3):931–4.
10.
Kreshover JE, Dickstein RJ, Rowe C, Babayan RK, Wang DS. Predictors for negative ureteroscopy in the management of upper urinary tract stone disease.
Urology
. 2011 Oct;78(4):748–52.
11.
Somani BK, Giusti G, Sun Y, Osther PJ, Frank M, De Sio M, et al. Complications associated with ureterorenoscopy (URS) related to treatment of urolithiasis: the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society URS Global study.
World J Urol
. 2017 Apr;35(4):675–81.
12.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.
Ann Surg
. 2004 Aug;240(2):205–13.
13.
Ghosh A, Oliver R, Way C, White L, Somani BK. Results of day-case ureterorenoscopy (DC-URS) for stone disease: prospective outcomes over 4.5 years.
World J Urol
. 2017 Nov;35(11):1757–64.
14.
Somani BK, Desai M, Traxer O, Lahme S. Stone-free rate (SFR): a new proposal for defining levels of SFR.
Urolithiasis
. 2014 Apr;42(2):95.
15.
Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, Essenmacher KR, Verga M, Glickman MG, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography.
Radiology
. 1995 Mar;194(3):789–94.
16.
Mattsson T. Frequency and location of pelvic phleboliths.
Clin Radiol
. 1980 Jan;31(1):115–8.
17.
Nitti VW. Urodynamic and video-urodynamic evaluation of the lower urinary tract.
Campbell-Walsh Urol
. 2012;1847–70.e4.
18.
Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP, Prevedello LM, Nawfel RD, Hanson R, et al. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults.
Radiology
. 2009 Apr;251(1):175–84.
19.
Drake T, Jain N, Bryant T, Wilson I, Somani BK. Should low-dose computed tomography kidneys, ureter and bladder be the new investigation of choice in suspected renal colic?: A systematic review.
Indian J Urol
. 2014 Apr;30(2):137–43.
20.
Yallappa S, Amer T, Jones P, Greco F, Tailly T, Somani BK, et al. Natural history of conservatively managed ureteral stones: analysis of 6600 Patients.
J Endourol
. 2018 May;32(5):371–9.
21.
Somani BK, Robertson A, Kata SG. Decreasing the cost of flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures.
Urology
. 2011 Sep;78(3):528–30.
22.
Rob S, Bryant T, Wilson I, Somani BK. Ultra-low-dose, low-dose, and standard-dose CT of the kidney, ureters, and bladder: is there a difference? Results from a systematic review of the literature.
Clin Radiol
. 2017 Jan;72(1):11–5.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.