Objectives: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing ureterolithotripsy (URS) with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) techniques for the management of large proximal ureteral stones (diameter greater than 10 mm). Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify suitable studies until November 2016. We used weighted mean difference to measure operative time and hospital stay, OR to measure stone free rate (SFR), and complication rate. Subgroup analyses were assessed for heterogeneity. Results: Fourteen publications strictly met our eligibility criteria of which 7 were randomized control studies (RCTs) and 7 non-RCTs. Meta-analysis of extractable data showed that LU and PCNL had higher SFR than URS. URS led to a similar hospital stay like that of LU. However, it had a shorter operative time and lower complication rate than LU. When we compared URS with PCNL, we found a shorter hospital stay in the URS group. However, there was no significant difference in terms of the operative time and complication rate between URS and PCNL. Conclusion: URS should be considered standard therapy for treating large proximal ureteral stones.

Keywords:
Ureteroscopic lithotripsy, Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Large proximal ureteral stones, Meta-analysis
1.
Lopes Neto AC, Korkes F, Silva JL 2nd, Amarante RD, Mattos MH, 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.
Tugcu V, Resorlu B, Sahin S, Atar A, Kocakaya R, et al: Flexible ureteroscopy versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones >15 mm: a single surgeon experience. Urol Int 2016;96:77-82.
3.
Korkes F, Gomes S, Heilberg I: Diagnosis and treatment of ureteral calculi. J Bras Nefrol 2009;31:55-61.
4.
Rukin NJ, Siddiqui ZA, Chedgy EC, Somani BK: Trends in upper tract stone disease in England: evidence from the hospital episodes statistics database. Urol Int 2016, Epub ahead of print.
5.
MacLennan S, Grivas N, Drake T, Dabestani S, Yuan Y, et al: What Are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy (URS) Compared with Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones in Children and Adults? PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, 2015 (accessed November 2016).
6.
Zhu H, Ye X, Xiao X, Chen X, Zhang Q, 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.
7.
Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Jha SK, et al: A prospective randomized comparison between laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones >2 cm: a single-center experience. J Endourol 2015;29:1248-1252.
8.
Basiri A, Simforoosh N, Ziaee A, Shayaninasab H, Moghaddam SM, et al: Retrograde, antegrade, and laparoscopic approaches for the management of large, proximal ureteral stones: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol 2008;22:2677-2680.
9.
Fang YQ, Qiu JG, Wang DJ, Zhan HL, Situ J: Comparative study on ureteroscopic lithotripsy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of unilateral upper ureteral stones. Acta Cir Bras 2012;27:266-270.
10.
Li H, Na W, Li H, Jiang Y, Gu X, et al: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus ureteroscopic lithotomy for large (>15 mm) impacted upper ureteral stones in different locations: is the upper border of the fourth lumbar vertebra a good indication for choice of management method? J Endourol 2013;27:1120-1125.
11.
Liu Y, Zhou Z, Xia A, Dai H, Guo L, et al: Clinical observation of different minimally invasive surgeries for the treatment of impacted upper ureteral calculi. Pak J Med Sci 2013;29:1358-1362.
12.
Ozturk MD, Sener NC, Goktug HN, Gucuk A, Nalbant I, et al: The comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stones. Can Urol Assoc J 2013;7:E673-E676.
13.
Zhang Y, Yu CF, Jin SH, Zhu H, Na YQ: A prospective comparative study between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy in the management of single large stone in the proximal ureter. Urology 2014;83:999-1002.
14.
Zhao C, Yang H, Tang K, Xia D, Xu H, et al: Comparison of laparoscopic stone surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of large upper urinary stones: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 2016;44:479-490.
15.
Cui X, Ji F, Yan H, Ou TW, Jia CS, et al: Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis. Urology 2015;85:748-756.
16.
Higgins JP, Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0. Oxford, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org (accessed December 10, 2016).
17.
Wells G, Shea B, O'connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, et al: The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. Ottawa Health Research Institute Web Site. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm (accessed December 10, 2016).
18.
Bozkurt IH, Yonguc T, Arslan B, Degirmenci T, Gunlusoy B, et al: Minimally invasive surgical treatment for large impacted upper ureteral stones: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9:E122-E125.
19.
Hu H, Lu Y, He D, Cui L, Zhang J, et al: Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of intermediate proximal ureteral and renal stones in the elderly. Urolithiasis 2016;44:427-434.
20.
Cavildak IK, Nalbant I, Tuygun C, Ozturk U, Goksel Goktug HN, et al: Comparison of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy methods for proximal ureteric stones greater than 10 mm. Urol J 2016;13:2484-2489.
21.
Shao Y, Wang DW, Lu GL, Shen ZJ: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm. World J Urol 2015;33:1841-1845.
22.
Nikoobakht MR, Emamzadeh A, Abedi AR, Moradi K, Mehrsai A: Transureteral lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in management of upper ureteral calculi: a comparative study. Urol J 2009;4:207-211.
23.
Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, et al: EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016;69:475-482.
24.
Skolarikos A, Alivizatos G, de la Rosette J: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 25 years later: complications and their prevention. Eur Urol 2006;50:981-990; discussion 990.
25.
Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Dretler SP, Kahn RI, et al: Ureteral stones clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 1997;158:1915-1921.
26.
Liong ML, Clayman RV, Gittes RF, Lingeman JE, Huffman JL, et al: Treatment options for proximal ureteral urolithiasis: review and recommendations. J Urol 1989;141:504-509.
27.
Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck AC, et al: 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 2007;52:1610-1631.
28.
Gnanapragasam VJ, Ramsden PD, Murthy LS, Thomas DJ: Primary in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteric calculi: results with a third-generation lithotripter. BJU Int 1999;84:770-774.
29.
Collado Serra A, Huguet Pérez J, Monreal García de Vicuña F, Rousaud Barón A, Izquierdo de la Torre F, et al: Renal hematoma as a complication of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1999;33:171-175.
30.
Rodrigues Netto N Jr, Lemos GC, Palma PC, Fiuza JL: Staghorn calculi: percutaneous versus anatrophic nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 1988;15:9-12.
31.
De S, Autorino R, Kim FJ, Zargar H, Laydner H, et al: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;67:125-137.
32.
Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ: Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 2007;51:899-906; discussion 906.
33.
Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, Yang S, Xia Y, et al: Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 2010;24:1579-1582.
34.
Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA, Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR, et al: The ‘mini-perc' technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 1998;16:371-374.
35.
He Z, Li X, Chen L, Zeng G, Yuan J: Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for upper urinary tract calculi in transplanted kidneys. BJU Int 2007;99:1467-1471.
36.
Durner L, Bach C, El Howairis Mel F, Hakenberg OW, Buchholz N: Current trends in urolithiasis treatment in various European health systems. Urol Int 2016;96:125-131.
37.
Singh V, Sinha RJ, Gupta DK, Kumar M, Akhtar A: Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: a prospective randomized comparison study. J Urol 2013;189:940-945.
38.
Prakash J, Singh V, Kumar M, Kumar M, Sinha RJ, Sankhwar S: Retroperitoneoscopic versus open mini-incision ureterolithotomy for upper- and mid-ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study. Urolithiasis 2014;42:133-139.
39.
Hong YK, Park DS: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy using Swiss Lithoclast for treatment of ureteral calculi: 12-years experience. J Korean Med Sci 2009;24:690-694.
40.
Zhang J, Xu C, He D, Lu Y, Hu H, et al: Flexible ureteroscopy for renal stone without preoperative ureteral stenting shows good prognosis. PeerJ 2016;4:e2728.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
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.