Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of lithotripsy in situ and after displacement.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Schuster, TG; Hollenbeck, BK; Faerber, GJ; Wolf, JS
Published in: J Urol
July 2002

PURPOSE: Ureteroscopic management is a viable option for lower pole calculi less than 2 cm. Recently a technique was described to displace the calculus into a more accessible calix using a nitinol basket or grasper before lithotripsy. We compared the efficacy and safety of this technique with in situ treatment of small and intermediate lower pole calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 95 ureteroscopy cases performed at our institution from January 1997 through August 2001 for renal calculi located only in the lower pole. Preoperative patient characteristics, stone size, operative details, complications and outcomes were compared for calculi treated in situ and those displaced before treatment. RESULTS: Adequate followup was available on 78 patients. Patients in the displacement group were statistically older, more often had a preoperative indwelling ureteral stent and had a mean operative time that was 16 minutes longer (p = 0.04). Average stone diameter in the in situ and displacement groups was 8 and 10.3 mm., respectively (p = 0.04). In patients with radiographic followup greater than 1 month complete success was obtained for 77% of stones 1 cm. or less treated in situ versus 89% treated with displacement first (p = 0.43). For calculi greater than 1 cm. complete success was obtained for 2 of the 7 (29%) treated in situ versus all 7 (100%) treated with displacement (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: When treating lower pole calculi 1 to 2 cm. via ureteroscopy, a higher success rate can be obtained with displacement into a more accessible calix before treatment.

Duke Scholars

Published In

J Urol

ISSN

0022-5347

Publication Date

July 2002

Volume

168

Issue

1

Start / End Page

43 / 45

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Urology & Nephrology
  • Ureteroscopy
  • Ureteral Calculi
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Stents
  • Radiography
  • Middle Aged
  • Male
  • Lithotripsy, Laser
  • Lithotripsy
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Schuster, T. G., Hollenbeck, B. K., Faerber, G. J., & Wolf, J. S. (2002). Ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of lithotripsy in situ and after displacement. J Urol, 168(1), 43–45.
Schuster, Timothy G., Brent K. Hollenbeck, Gary J. Faerber, and J Stuart Wolf. “Ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of lithotripsy in situ and after displacement.J Urol 168, no. 1 (July 2002): 43–45.
Schuster TG, Hollenbeck BK, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS. Ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of lithotripsy in situ and after displacement. J Urol. 2002 Jul;168(1):43–5.
Schuster, Timothy G., et al. “Ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of lithotripsy in situ and after displacement.J Urol, vol. 168, no. 1, July 2002, pp. 43–45.
Schuster TG, Hollenbeck BK, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS. Ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of lithotripsy in situ and after displacement. J Urol. 2002 Jul;168(1):43–45.
Journal cover image

Published In

J Urol

ISSN

0022-5347

Publication Date

July 2002

Volume

168

Issue

1

Start / End Page

43 / 45

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Urology & Nephrology
  • Ureteroscopy
  • Ureteral Calculi
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Stents
  • Radiography
  • Middle Aged
  • Male
  • Lithotripsy, Laser
  • Lithotripsy