146 patients whose ureteral stones did not pass spontaneously participated in a prospective study on optimal management. Patients were offered two treatment options: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS). The stone was treated with the technique preferred by the patient. In case of treatment failure after first-line therapy, patients again could decide on how to proceed. Stone analysis could be obtained from 72.6% patients. ESWL was the primary treatment in 66.4% patients. In 2 patients, ESWL was the secondary treatment after failed URS. URS was the first-line therapy in 33.6% patients. In 29 patients URS was done after failed ESWL. For analgesia, sedoanalgesia or spinal anesthesia were used. Analgesia was required in 74.2% ESWL and 100% URS sessions. Following ESWL, 70.1% patients became stone free. In 29.9% ESWL failed. Distal stones had a higher failure rate than proximal or mid-ureteral calculi. Distal stones treated without success were significantly larger than those treated successfully. Failures were switched to URS. Stone analysis could be obtained in 26 patients with failed ESWL: 23/26 consisted of pure whewellite or mixed whewellite stones. Clinically relevant complications were not observed. After URS, 94.9% of the patients became stone free. In distal stones, the stone-free rate was 97.5%. There was only 1 relevant complication: a proximal ureteral lesion requiring surgical repair. Our study demonstrates that URS is a safe and highly effective treatment option for ureteral stones. In patients with distal ureteral stones, it should be offered as a first-line treatment. When whewellite is expected as the stone mineral, URS is the treatment of choice.

Keywords:
Ureteral stones, Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, Lithotripsy, Ureteroscopy
1.
Strohmaier WL: Potential deleterious effects of shock wave lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol 1995;5:198–201.
2.
Anderson KR, Keetch DW, Albala DM, Chandhoke PS, McClennan BL, Clayman RV: Optimal therapy for the distal ureteral stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy. J Urol 1994;152:62–65.
3.
Farsi HMA, Mosli HA, Alzimaity M, Bahnassy AA, Ibrahim MA: In situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for primary ureteric calculi. Urology 1994;43:776–780.
4.
Chang S-C, Ho C-M, Kuo H-C: Ureteroscopic treatment of lower ureteral calculi in the era of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: From a developing country point of view. J Urol 1993;150:1395–1398.
5.
Wolf JS Jr, Carroll PR, Stoller ML: Cost-effectiveness v patient preference in the choice of treatment for distal ureteral calculi: A literature-based decision analysis. J Endourol 1995;9:243–248.
6.
Hosking DH, Bard RJ: Ureteroscopy with intravenous sedation for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi: A safe and effective alternative to shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1996;156:899–902.
7.
Schubert G: 70,000 urinary stone analyses: Analytical and metaphylactic aspects; in Pak CYC, Resnick MI, Preminger GM (eds): Urolithiasis 1996. Dallas, Millet the Printer, 1996, pp 452–453.
8.
Becht E, Moll V, Neisius D, Ziegler M: Treatment of prevesical ureteral calculi by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1988;139:916–918.
9.
Erturk E, Herrman E, Cockett ATK: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones. J Urol 1993;149:1425–1426.
10.
Wills TE, Burns JR: Ureteroscopy: An outpatients procedure? J Urol 1994;151:1185–1187.
11.
Vögeli T-A, Mellin H-E, Hopf B, Ackermann R: Ureteroscopy under local anesthesia with and without intravenous analgesia. Br J Urol 1995;72:161–164.
12.
Zisman A, Siegel YI, Lindner A: Ureteroscopy for ureterolithiasis with sedation only. Eur Urol 1995;27:151–155.
13.
Peschel R, Janetschek G, Brunner J, Bartsch G: Treatment of distal ureteral stones. ESWL versus URS: A prospective randomized study. J Urol 1998;159:1220A.
14.
Jeromin L, Sosnowski M: Ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral stones: over 10 years experience. Eur Urol 1998;34:344–349.
1999
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.