Objectives: To evaluate the impact of retrograde pyelography (RPG) in patients treated with ureteroscopy (URS) for ureteral calculi. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients treated with and without RPG prior to URS at a single institution from 2010 to 2013. Assessment of stone-free rates and intraoperative complications. Results: Out of 469 URS, 211 (45%) were done with and 258 (55%) without RPG. Complete stone removal was achieved in 86.8% without RPG compared to 73% with RPG (p = 0.0001). Partial stone removal rates were similar in both groups (p = 0.77). Stone removal was not achieved in 9.3 vs. 22.7% (p = 0.0001), with concordant findings in the distal (7.4 vs. 16.9%, p = 0.007) and the proximal ureter (14.5 vs. 38.6%, p = 0.002). Patients with RPG had a threefold higher chance of an unsuccessful URS (OR 3.05, 1.71-5.43, p < 0.0001) and were less likely of having a complete stone removal (OR 0.37, 0.22-0.61, p < 0.0001). Ureteral avulsions (0%) and ureteral perforation rates were similar (4.7 vs. 3.8%, p = 0.65). Conclusions: Patients treated with an RPG prior to URS had significantly inferior stone-free rates. RPG was identified as an independent risk factor for inferior results. RPG neither facilitates nor diminishes complication rates during URS.

Keywords:
Ureteral calculi, Ureteroscopy, Surgical procedures, Minimally invasive, Urography
1.
Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, et al: Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 2012;62:160.
2.
Hesse A, Brandle E, Wilbert D, et al: Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol 2003;44:709.
3.
Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Seitz C: Guidelines on urolithiasis; in EAU Guidelines. 25th EAU Annual Congress, Barcelona 2010 (ISBN 978-90-79754-71-7, update 2013).
4.
Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al: 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 2007;178:2418.
5.
Skolarikos A, Laguna MP, Alivizatos G, et al: The role for active monitoring in urinary stones: a systematic review. J Endourol 2010;24:923.
6.
Skolarikos A, Mitsogiannis H, Deliveliotis C: Indications, prediction of success and methods to improve outcome of shock-wave lithotripsy of renal and upper ureteral calculi. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2010;82:56.
7.
Seklehner S, Laudano MA, Jamzadeh A, et al: Trends and inequalities in the surgical management of ureteral calculi in the United States. BJU Int 2014;113:476-483.
8.
Perez Castro E, Osther PJ, Jinga V, et al: Differences in ureteroscopic stone treatment and outcomes for distal, mid-, proximal, or multiple ureteral locations: the clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study. Eur Urol 2014;66:102-109.
9.
Yencilek F, Sarica K, Erturhan S, et al: Treatment of ureteral calculi with semirigid ureteroscopy: where should we stop? Urol Int 2010;84:260.
10.
Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, et al: Treatment of ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Urol 2012;188:130.
11.
Elashry OM, Elgamasy AK, Sabaa MA, et al: Ureteroscopic management of lower ureteric calculi: a 15-year single-centre experience. BJU Int 2008;102:1010.
12.
Tugcu V, Tasci AI, Ozbek E, et al: Does stone dimension affect the effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones? Int Urol Nephrol 2008;40:269.
13.
Hong YK, Park DS: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy using Swiss LithoClast® for treatment of ureteral calculi: 12-years' experience. J Kor Med Sci 2009;24:690.
14.
Seitz C, Tanovic E, Kikic Z, et al: Impact of stone size, location, composition, impaction, and hydronephrosis on the efficacy of holmium:YAG-laser ureterolithotripsy. Eur Urol 2007;52:1751.
15.
Pagnani CJ, El Akkad M, Bagley DH: Prevention of stone migration with the accordion during endoscopic ureteral lithotripsy. J Endourol 2012;26:484.
16.
Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Nita G, et al: Complications of 2,735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol 2006;20:179.
17.
Manohar T, Ganpule A, Desai M: Comparative evaluation of Swiss LithoClast-2® and holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted upper-ureteral stones. J Endourol 2008;22:443.
18.
Dretler SP: The stone cone: a new generation of basketry. J Urol 2001;165:1593.
19.
Holley PG, Sharma SK, Perry KT, et al: Assessment of novel ureteral occlusion device and comparison with stone cone in prevention of stone fragment migration during lithotripsy. J Endourol 2005;19:200.
20.
Ding H, Wang Z, Du W, et al: NTrap in prevention of stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis. J Endourol 2012;26:130.
21.
Fuganti PE, Pires S, Branco R, et al: Predictive factors for intraoperative complications in semirigid ureteroscopy: analysis of 1,235 ballistic ureterolithotripsies. Urology 2008;72:770.
22.
Tanriverdi O, Silay MS, Kadihasanoglu M, et al: Revisiting the predictive factors for intraoperative complications of rigid ureteroscopy: a 15-year experience. Urol J 2012;9:457.
23.
De la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P, et al: The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol 2014;28:131.
24.
Jamal JE, Armenakas NA, Sosa RE, et al: Perioperative patient radiation exposure in the endoscopic removal of upper urinary tract calculi. J Endourol 2011;25:1747.
25.
Ferrandino MN, Bagrodia A, Pierre SA, et al: Radiation exposure in the acute and short-term management of urolithiasis at two academic centers. J Urol 2009;181:668.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
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.