Aim: To compare the effectiveness of Stone Cone™, PercSys and lidocaine jelly instillation to prevent stone migration during ureterorenoscopy (URS). Materials and Methods: One hundred patients who underwent URS for proximal ureteral stones between 2007 and 2012 were evaluated prospectively. The patients were divided into four groups consecutively. The control group (Group I) consisted of the 25 consecutive patients, in whom no device or method was used to prevent stone migration. Group II consisted of 25 patients treated with the Stone Cone, group III consisted of 25 patients treated with PercSys, and group IV consisted of 25 patients treated with lidocaine jelly instillation. Results: The migration rates were 4.5% in group II, 8.7% in group III, 21.7% in group IV, and 31.8% in group I. The migration rate was found to be statistically significantly lower in the groups treated with the Stone Cone and PercSys compared to the control group (p = 0.014, p = 0.048). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the lidocaine jelly group and the control group in terms of migration rates (p = 0.444). Conclusions: Our results suggested that the Stone Cone and PercSys were the most successful methods with significantly low migration rates (4.5 and 8.7%, respectively).

Keywords:
Ureterorenoscopy, Stone migration, Stone Cone, PercSys, Lidocaine jelly
1.
Gonen M, Canker A, Istanbulluoglu O, Ozkardes H: Efficacy of Dretler Stone Cone in the treatment of ureteral stones with pneumatic lithotripsy. Urol Int 2006;76:159-162.
2.
Delvecchio FC, Preminger GM: Management of residual stones. Urol Clin North Am 2000;27:347-354.
3.
Knispel HH, Klan R, Heicappell R, Miller K: Pneumatic lithotripsy applied through deflected working channel of miniureteroscope: results in 143 patients. J Endourol 1998;12:513-516.
4.
Pardalidis NP, Papatsoris AG, Kosmaoglou EV: Prevention of retrograde calculus migration with the Stone Cone. Urol Res 2005;33:61-64.
5.
Dretler SP: The Stone Cone: new generation of basketry. J Urol 2001;165:1593-1596.
6.
Eisner BH, Pengune W, Stoller ML: Use of an antiretropulsion device to prevent stone retropulsion significantly increases the efficiency of pneumatic lithotripsy: an in vitro study. BJU Int 2009;104:858-861.
7.
Mohseni MG, Arasteh S, Alizadeh F: Preventing retrograde stone displacement during pneumatic lithotripsy for ureteral calculi using lidocaine jelly. Urology 2006;68:505-507.
8.
Eisner BH, Feldman AS, Chapin BF, Dretler SP: ‘Blind coning' - using the Stone Cone for removal of intramural ureteral calculi. Urol 2007;69:773-775.
9.
Robert M, Bennani A, Guiter J, Avérous M, Grasset D: Treatment of 150 ureteric calculi with the LithoClast. Eur Urol 1994;26:212-215.
10.
Dretler SP: Ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi: prevention of stone migration. J Endourol 2000;14:565-567.
11.
Maislos SD, Volpe M, Albert PS, Raboy A: Efficacy of stone for treatment of proximal ureteral stones. J Endourol 2004;18:862-864.
12.
Rodrigez GN, Fernandez GI, Pascual MC: A device that prevents ureteral stone migration during intracorporeal lithotripsy. Arch Esp Urol 2005;58:329-334.
13.
Desai MR, Patel SB, Desai MM, Kukreja R, Sabnis RB, Desai RM, Patel SH: The Dretler Stone Cone: a device to prevent ureteral stone migration - the initial clinical experience. J Urol 2002;167:1985-1988.
14.
Farahat YA, Elbahnasy AE, Elashry OM: A randomized prospective controlled study for assessment of different ureteral occlusion devices in prevention of stone migration during pneumatic lithotripsy. Urology 2011;77:30-35.
15.
Ahmed M, Pedro RN, Kieley S, Akornor JW, Durfee WK, Monga M: Systematic evaluation of ureteral occlusion devices: insertion, deployment, stone migration, and extraction. Urology 2009;73:976-980.
16.
Ali AA, Ali ZA, Halstead JC, Yousaf MW, Ewah P: A novel method to prevent retrograde displacement of ureteric calculi during intracorporeal lithotripsy. BJU Int 2004;94:441-442.
17.
Zehri AA, Ather MH, Siddiqui KM, Sulaiman MN: A randomized clinical trial of lidocaine jelly for prevention of inadvertent retrograde stone migration during pneumatic lithotripsy of ureteral stone. J Urol 2008;180:966-968.
18.
Bastawisy M, Gameel T, Radwan M, Ramadan A, Alkathiri M, Omar A: A comparison of Stone Cone versus lidocaine jelly in the prevention of ureteral stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Ther Adv Urol 2011;3:203-210.
19.
Marks AJ, Teichman JM: Lasers in clinical urology: state of the art and new horizons. World J Urol 2007;25:227-233.
20.
Delvecchio FC, Kuo RL, Preminger GM: Clinical efficacy of combined Lithoclast and Lithovac stone removal during ureteroscopy. J Urol 2000;164:40-42.
21.
Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, Lin CL, Chen CS: Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol 2004;172:1899-1902.
22.
Lam JS, Greene TD, Gupta M: Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium: YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2002;167:1972-1976.
23.
Leveillee RJ, Lobik L: Intracorporeal lithotripsy: which modality is best? Curr Opin Urol 2003;13:249-253.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
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.