Abstract
Introduction
Ureteroscopy is now the most frequent treatment used around the world for stone disease. Technological advancement, efficiency, safety, and minimally invasiveness of this procedure are some of the reasons for this change of trend.
Materials and methods
In this review of the literature, a search of the PubMed database was conducted to identify articles related to ureteroscopy and accessories. The committee assigned by the International Consultation on Urological Disease reviewed all the data and produced a consensus statement relating to the ureteroscopy and all the particularities around this procedure.
Conclusion
This manuscript provides literatures and recommendations for endourologists to keep them informed in regard to the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative consideration in regard of a ureteroscopy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS (2012) Prevalence of kidney stones in United States. Eur Urol 62(1):160–165
de la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P et al (2014) The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol 28(2):131–139
Bourdoumis A, Stasinou T, Kachrilas S et al (2014) Thromboprophylaxis and bleeding diathesis in minimally invasive stone surgery. Nat Rev Urol 11(1):51–58
Fulgham PF, Assimos DS, Pearle MS, Preminger GM (2013) Clinical effectiveness protocols for imaging in the management of ureteral calculous disease: AUA technology assessment. J Urol 189(4):1203–1213
Giusti G, Proietti S, Peschechera R et al (2014) Sky is no limit for URS: extending the indications and special circumstances. World J Urol 33(2):257–273
Kandasami SV, Mamoulakis C, El-Nahas AR et al (2014) Impact of case volume on outcomes of ureteroscopy for ureteral stones: the clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study. Eur Urol 66(6):1046–1051
Park HK, Paick SH, Oh SJ, Kim HH (2004) Ureteroscopic lithotripsy under local anesthesia: analysis of the effectiveness and patient tolerability. Eur Urol 45(5):670–673
Grabe M, Bartoletti R, Johansen TEB, Cai T, Çek M, Köves B, Naber KG, Pickard RS, Tenke P, Wagenlehner F, Wullt B (2014) Guidelines on urological infections. Eur Assoc Urol. https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/19-Urological-infections_LR2.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2015
Korkes F, Lopes-Neto AC, Mattos MH et al (2009) Patient position and semi-rigid ureteroscopy outcomes. Int Braz J Urol 35(5):542–547
Pan J, Xue W, Xia L et al (2014) Ureteroscopic lithotripsy in Trendelenburg position for proximal ureteral calculi: a prospective, randomized, comparative study. Int Urol Nephrol 46(10):1895–1901
Dickstein RJ, Kreshover JE, Babayan RK, Wang DS (2010) Is safety wire necessary during routine flexible ureteroscopy? J Endourol 24(10):1589–1592
Atis G, Arikan O, Gurbuz C et al (2013) Comparison of different ureteroscope sizes in treating ureteral calculi in adult patients. Urology 82:1231–1235
Deters LA, Dagrosa LM, Herrick BW et al (2014) Ultrasound guided ureteroscopy for the definitive management of ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial. J Urol 192(6):1710–1713
Ng YH, Somani BK, Dennison A et al (2010) Irrigant flow and intrarenal pressure during flexible ureteroscopy: the effect of different access sheaths, working channel instruments, and hydrostatic pressure. J Endourol 24(12):1915–1920
Kourambas J, Byrne RR, Preminger GM (2001) Does a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? J Urol 165(3):789–793
Doizi S, Knoll T, Scoffone CM et al (2014) First clinical evaluation of a new innovative ureteral access sheath (Re-Trace): a European study. World J Urol 32:143–147
Cabrera FJ, Preminger GM, Lipkin ME (2014) Antiretropulsion devices. Curr Opin Urol 24(2):173–178
Ursiny M, Eisner BH (2013) Cost-effectiveness of anti-retropulsion devices for ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Urol 189(5):1762–1766
Hendlin K, Weiland D, Monga M (2008) Impact of irrigation systems on stone migration. J Endourol 22(3):453–458
Shalaby E, Ahmed AF, Maarouf A et al (2013) Randomized controlled trial to compare the safety and efficacy of tamsulosin, solifenacin, and combination of both in treatment of double-j stent-related lower urinary symptoms. Adv Urol 2013:752382
Haleblian G, Kijvikai K, de la Rosette J, Preminger G (2008) Ureteral stenting and urinary stone management: a systematic review. J Urol 179(2):424–430
Somani BK, Desai M, Traxer O, Lahme S (2014) Stone-free rate (SFR): a new proposal for defining levels of SFR. Urolithiasis 42(2):95
Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R et al (2008) Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 179(5 suppl):S69–S73
Sener NC, Imamoglu MA, Bas O et al (2014) Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm. Urolithiasis 42(2):127–131
Kumar A, Kumar N, Vasudeva P et al (2015) A prospective randomized comparison between shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and miniperc for treatment of 1–2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi: a single centre experience. J Urol 193(1):160–164
Aboumarzouk O, Monga M, Kat SG et al (2012) flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm : a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 26(10):1257–1263
Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert J, Schulam P (2009) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for multiple unilateral intrarenal stones. Eur Urol 55(5):1190–1196
Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Nita G et al (2006) Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol 20:179–185
Georgescu D, Mulţescu R, Geavlete B, Geavlete P (2014) Intraoperative complications after 8150 semirigid ureteroscopies for ureteral lithiasis: risk analysis and management. Chirurgia 109(3):369–374
Castro Perez, Osther P, Jinga V et al (2014) 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 66(1):102–109
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J. Cloutier: Project development, protocol, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing; K. Anson: Manuscript writing/editing; G. Giusti: Manuscript writing/editing; M. Grasso: Manuscript writing/editing; G. Kamphuis: Manuscript writing/editing; S. Lahme: Manuscript writing/editing; E. Liatsikos: Manuscript writing/editing; A. Patel: Manuscript writing/editing; M. Pearl: Manuscript writing/editing; L. Valiquette: Manuscript writing/editing; and O. Traxer: Project development, protocol, and manuscript writing/editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
For this type of study, formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
For this type of study, formal (review) consent is not required.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cloutier, J., Anson, K., Giusti, G. et al. Update of the ICUD-SIU consultation on stone technology behind ureteroscopy. World J Urol 35, 1353–1359 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2073-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2073-x