Ureteroscopic treatment of ureteric lithiasis. Analysis of 354 urs procedures in a community hospital.Acta Urol Belg. 1998 Oct; 66(3):33-40.AU
The optimal treatment of ureteric lithiasis continues to be a point of discussion, as there are different treatment modalities. Conservative treatment, EWSL, ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous litholapaxy, and (laparoscopic) ureterolithotomy, all have there place in the treatment of ureteric lithiasis. In order to evaluate if ureteroscopy is a valuable alternative to ESWL in the treatment of ureteric lithiasis, an analysis of all the ureteroscopies performed in our institution was made and these results were compared with results (both ESWL and URS) described in literature.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
During the period 1990 till 1997, 292 patients underwent in our institution in total 354 ureteroscopies for ureteric lithiasis. In all procedures a rigid 9 Fr. ureteroscope was used, together with laser lithotripsy or pneumatic lithotripsy as fragmentation device.
Overall success rate in our series was 90.1%, with distal and middle ureteric stone location being more favorable (94% and 95%) than proximal location (73%). Overall complication rate was 7.6% (including minor complications, such as ureteral mucosal tear), for which open surgical intervention had to be performed in 2.3% of cases.
Although invasive, ureteroscopy proved to be a very competitive alternative to ESWL, when treating ureteric lithiasis. Success rates are equal, if not better, using ureteroscopy when compared to ESWL. Complications of ureteroscopy are infrequent, but do exist. Therefore ureteroscopy should be performed by experienced urologists.