Objective: To compare safety and effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (L-RU) in treatment of proximal ureteral stones larger than 15 mm. Materials and Methods: This study included 103 patients treated with L-RU (Group I), and 80 patients treated with F-URS (Group II) due to proximal ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm, in a single center. Patients' characteristics and procedure-related parameters including success rate, operation time, hospital stay, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, auxiliary procedures, and complications were compared between Groups I and II. Results: It was seen that both methods were effective in the treatment of large ureteral stones; however, R-LU provided a higher stone-free rate (100 vs. 87.5%), a lower complication rate (10.6 vs. 23.7%), and a shorter operation time (65.4 vs. 75.1 min). On the other hand, patients treated with F-URS had less postoperative pain, a shorter hospital stay, a faster return to daily activities. Conclusions: For treatment of large proximal ureteral stones, L-RU provides significantly higher success and lower retreatment rate compared with F-URS. Our results also indicate that R-LU, which has been regarded as an invasive procedure is not as invasive as it is thought to be, and it must be kept in mind that F-URS may cause complications despite its noninvasive nature.

Keywords:
Etroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, Proximal ureteral stones, Flexible ureteroscopy
1.
Lopes Neto AC, Korkes F, Silva JL 2nd, et al: Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy. J Urol 2012;187:164-168.
2.
Fang YQ, Qiu JG, Wang DJ, et al: Comparative study on ureteroscopic lithotripsy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of unilateral upper ureteral stones. Acta Cir Bras 2012;27:266-270.
3.
Wang Y, Hou J, Wen D, et al: Comparative analysis of upper ureteral stones (> 15 mm) treated with retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy and ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy. Int Urol Nephrol 2010;42:897-901.
4.
Sun X, Xia S, Lu J, et al: Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. J Endourol 2008;22:913-917.
5.
Resorlu B, Unsal A, Gulec H, et al: A new scoring system for predicting stone-free rate after retrograde intrarenal surgery: the ‘Resorlu-Unsal stone score'. Urology 2012;80:512-518.
6.
Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, et al: Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 2011;25:1131-1135.
7.
Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, et al: Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater - is this the new frontier? J Urol 2008;179:981-984.
8.
Riley JM, Stearman L, Troxel S: Retrograde ureteroscopy for renal stones larger than 2.5 cm. J Endourol 2009;23:1395-1398.
9.
Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K, et al: Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 2008;53:184-190.
10.
Nabi G, Baldo O, Cartledge J, et al: The impact of the dornier compact delta lithotriptor on the management of primary ureteric calculi. Eur Urol 2003;44:482-486.
11.
Park H, Park M, Park T: Two-year experience with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy v ureteroscopic manipulation. J Endourol 1998;12:501-504.
12.
Simunovic D, Sudarevic B, Galic J: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in elderly: impact of age and comorbidity on stone-free rate and complications. J Endourol 2010;24:1831-1837.
13.
Topaloglu H, Karakoyunlu N, Sari S, et al: A comparison of antegrade percutaneous and laparoscopic approaches in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:691946.
14.
Kumar V, Ahlawat R, Banjeree GK, et al: Percutaneous ureterolitholapaxy: the best bet to clear large bulk impacted upper ureteral calculi. Arch Esp Urol 1996;49:86-91.
15.
Goel R, Aron M, Kesarwani PK, et al: Percutaneous antegrade removal of impacted upper-ureteral calculi: still the treatment of choice in developing countries. J Endourol 2005;19:54-57.
16.
Long Q, Guo J, Xu Z, et al: Experience of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones. Urol Int 2013;90:384-388.
17.
Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ: Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 2007;51:899-906.
18.
Karadag MA, Demir A, Cecen K, et al: Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus semirigid ureteroscopy for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones: a retrospective comparative analysis of 124 patients. Urol J 2014;11:1867-1872.
19.
Zhu H, Ye X, Xiao X, et al: Retrograde, antegrade, and laparoscopic approaches to the management of large upper ureteral stones after shockwave lithotripsy failure: a four-year retrospective study. J Endourol 2014;28:100-103.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
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.