Comparison Between Retrograde and Antegrade Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy for the Management of Medium-Sized Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Randomized Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to present the outcomes of retrograde and antegrade ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones ranging in size from 10 to 20 millimeters in diameter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 2023 to December 2023, 70 patients were included in this prospective randomized double-arm interventional study. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (35 patients) had semi-rigid retrograde ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy, and Group 2 (35 patients) had semi-rigid antegrade ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. RESULTS: In terms of length of hospitalization, there was a statistically significant distinction between the groups that were evaluated (p = 0.001). Group (1) showed a statistically significant distinction in Hb and HCT levels before and after the procedure (p < 0.05), whereas Group (2) showed a similar difference in Hb, creatinine, and HCT levels before and after the operation (p < 0.05). The antegrade group had much more hemorrhage than the retrograde group. Reduced hemoglobin (p = 0.008) and hemoglobin saturation (p = 0.029) were most noticeable in the antegrade group. Regarding stone-free rates (SFRs), no statistically significant difference was noted between the groups (p = 0.643). CONCLUSION: Both retrograde and antegrade ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy are dependable and successful for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. For medium-sized proximal ureteral stones (10-20 mm), retrograde ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy may be the first option due to its shorter hospital stays, decreased bleeding rates, blood transfusion needs, and temporary rise in serum creatinine.

Exploring the potential of combined B-mode features and color Doppler ultrasound in the diagnosis of ureteric stone as an alternative to ionizing radiation exposure by computed tomography.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic efficacy of integrating B-mode and color Doppler capabilities of ultrasound (US) to establish a robust standalone diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of ureteric stones as an alternative to non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography (NCCT). METHODS: A total of 140 consecutive patients diagnosed with ureteric stones using NCCT were enrolled. On the same day, US in both B-mode and Color Doppler was performed by an experienced radiologist who was blinded to the NCCT scan results. The diagnostic rate of US for stone detection was recorded. Additionally, baseline patient and stone characteristics were analyzed for their association with the accuracy of stone detection using US. RESULTS: US exhibited a high sensitivity of 91.43%, detecting 128 out of 140 stone foci. Notably, ureteric stones in the proximal and uretero-vesical junction (UVJ) segments were readily identifiable compared to those in the pelvic region (p = 0.0003). Additionally, hydronephrosis enhanced the US's ability to detect stones (p < 0.0001). Conversely, abdominal gases and obesity adversely affected US capabilities (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.009, respectively). Stone side, size, and density showed no statistically significant impact (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: US with its color Doppler capabilities could serve as a reliable and safe alternative imaging modality in the diagnostic work up of patients with ureterolithiasis. Factors including stone location, Hydronephrosis, weight and abdominal gases significantly influenced its accuracy.

Randomized comparison of effect of standard antibiotic prophylaxis versus enhanced prophylactic measures on rate of urinary tract infection after flexible ureteroscopy.

PURPOSE: To compare the rate of post-flexible ureteroscopy urinary tract infection (UTI) in patients subjected to the standard antibiotic prophylaxis alone versus enhanced prophylactic measures. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled study included 256 patients subjected to flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) for ureteral or renal stones from March 2018 to July 2022. Treatment groups included the standard antibiotic prophylaxis group (group 1, n=128) and the enhanced prophylaxis group (group 2, n=128). Patients in group 1 were injected with intravenous fluoroquinolone one hour preoperatively, and oral antibiotics were used for 24 h postoperatively. Patients in group 2 had urine culture ten days before the procedure; antibiotic-culture based was given for positive asymptomatic cases, while the procedure was deferred for active UTI. RESULTS: The study groups were comparable regarding patient demographics, stone characteristics, operative time, and intraoperative complications. The overall hospitalization time was 1.68 ± 0.81 days. Postoperative, and overall complications were significantly higher in group 1 (15.6% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.04 and 26.6% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.047), respectively. Twenty patients (15.6 %) in the standard prophylaxis group were diagnosed with UTI in comparison to 8 patients (6.3 %) in the enhanced prophylaxis group (p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Urinary tract infection after FURS could be reduced significantly by utilizing the suggested enhanced prophylactic approach.

Value of preoperative ureteral wall thickness in prediction of impaction of ureteric stones stratified by size in laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of preoperative UWT in the prediction of impaction of ureteral stones stratified according to stone size in ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. PATIENT AND METHODS: This study included 154 patients submitted to URSL for ureteral stones. Radiological data comprised the presence of hydronephrosis, anteroposterior pelvic diameter (PAPD), proximal ureteric diameter (PUD), and maximum UWT at the stone site. Collected stone characteristics were stone size, side, number, site, and density. RESULTS: The study included 154 patients subjected to URSL. They comprised 74 patients (48.1%) with impacted stones and 80 (51.9%) with non-impacted stones. Patients were stratified into those with stone size ≤ 10 mm and others with stone size > 10 mm. In the former group, we found that stone impaction was significantly associated with higher PAPD, PUD, and UWT. In patients with stone size > 10 mm, stone impaction was related to higher UWT, more stone number, and higher frequency of stones located in the lower ureter. ROC curve analysis revealed good power of UWT in discrimination of stone impaction in all patients [AUC (95% CI) 0.65 (0.55-0.74)] at a cut-off of 3.8 mm, in patients with stone size ≤ 10 mm [AUC (95% CI) 0.76 (0.61-0.91)] at a cut-off of 4.1 mm and in patients with stone size > 10 mm [AUC (95% CI) 0.72 (0.62-0.83)] at a cut-off of 3.0 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Stratifying ureteric stones according to size would render UWT a more practical and clinically-oriented approach for the preoperative prediction of stone impaction.