Comparison of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and retrograde lithotripsy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones

The current approach in the surgical treatment of ureteral calculi involves the use of endourological procedures such as retrograde ureteroscopy with lithotripsy or percutaneous antegrade lithotripsy in the proximal ureter. Ureterolithotomy as a treatment method is of an auxiliary nature and is used when endourological intervention is impossible or in case of intraoperative collisions during access conversion. However, there are several comparative studies on lithotripsy and lithotomy.

The aim. Comparative analysis of the outcomes of laparoscopic lithotomy and retrograde lithotripsy in the surgical treatment of proximal ureteral calculi, as well as the search for predictors of prolonged disability.

Materials and methods. A prospective randomized multicenter study included 53 patients with an established diagnosis of ureterolithiasis who were treated in the period 2018–2021 in urological hospitals in Irkutsk. All patients were divided into two comparison groups: Lithotomy group (group 1; n = 30) and Lithotripsy group (group 2; n = 23).

Results. When analyzing the results of the study, it was found that the level of complications of class II–III according to Clavien – Dindo was statistically comparable in both groups (p > 0.05). However, in absolute and relative terms, the prevalence of this indicator was noted during retrograde ureterolithotripsy. According to hard endpoints (reoperation, presence of residual stones or migration during the operation), 29 (96.6 %) patients of group 1 and 17 (73.4 %) patients of group 2 (p = 0.514) were successfully operated on.

Conclusion. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy may be offered to patients with large proximal ureteral stones as an alternative treatment option with better residual stone freedom but generally similar overall outcomes and complication rates.

1. Georgescu D, Mulţescu R, Geavlete B, Geavlete P. Intraoperative complications after 8150 semirigid ureteroscopies for ureteral lithiasis: Risk analysis and management. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2014; 109(3): 369-374.

2. Fulla J, Prasanchaimontri P, Rizk A, Loftus C, Remer EM, Monga M. Ureteral diameter as predictor of ureteral injury during ureteral access sheath placement. J Urol. 2021; 205(1): 159-164. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001299

3. Fankhauser CD, Mohebbi N, Grogg J, Holenstein A, Zhong Q, Hermanns T, et al. Prevalence of hypertension and diabetes after exposure to extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy in patients with renal calculi: A retrospective non-randomized data analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2018; 50(7): 1227-1233. doi: 10.1007/s11255-018-1857-2

4. Chen Y, Wen Y, Yu Q, Duan X, Wu W, Zeng G. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus fl xible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones: A meta-analysis comparing clinical efficacy and safety. BMC Urology. 2020; 20(1): 109. doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00677-4

5. Wang Y, Chang X, Li J, Han Z. Efficacy and safety of various surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stone ≥ 10 mm: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int Braz J Urol. 2020; 46(6): 902-926. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2019.0550

6. Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, Byrne TW, Lingeman JE. Treatment of ureteral and renal stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Urol. 2012; 188(1): 130-137. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2569

7. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(3): 475-482. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041

8. Li J, Chang X, Wang Y, Han Z. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy versus ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for large proximal ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020; 72(1): 30-37. doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03557-4

9. Abdel Raheem A, Alowidah I, Hagras A, Gameel T, Ghaith A, Elghiaty A, et al. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteric stones: Surgical technique, outcomes and literature review. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2021; 14(2): 241-249. doi: 10.1111/ases.12861

10. Sharma G, Pareek T, Tyagi S, Kaundal P, Yadav AK, Thummala Y, et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1): 11811. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91364-3

11. Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Jha SK, Singh H. A prospective randomized comparison between laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones > 2 cm: A single-center experience. J Endourol. 2015; 29(11): 1248-1252. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0791

12. Mao T, Wei N, Yu J, Lu Y. Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of large renal stones: A meta-analysis. J Int Med Res. 2021; 49(1): 300060520983136. doi: 10.1177/0300060520983136

13. Lai S, Jiao B, Diao T, Seery S, Hu M, Wang M, et al. Optimal management of large proximal ureteral stones (> 10 mm): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2020; 80: 205-217. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.06.025

14. Soltani MH, Shemshaki H. Stented versus stentless laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: A systematic review and metaanalysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017; 27(12): 1269-1274. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0183

15. Torricelli FCM, Monga M, Marchini GS, Srougi M, Nahas WC, Mazzucchi E. Semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large upper ureteral stones: A metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Braz J Urol. 2016; 42(4): 645-654. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0696