Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Ureteric Stones – State-of-the-Art Review

References

• Teichmann HH. Intraureterale lithotripsie [Intraureteral lithrotripsy (author’s transl)]. Der Urologe Ausg A. 1980;19(4):231. German.
   Google Scholar
• Bagley DH, Huffman JL, Lyon ES. Combined rigid and flexible ureteropyeloscopy. J Urol. 1983;130(2):243–244. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)51083-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rukin NJ, Siddiqui ZA, Chedgy ECP, Somani BK. Trends in upper tract stone disease in England: evidence from the hospital episodes statistics database. Urol Int. 2017;98:391–396. doi:10.1159/000449510
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonelli JA, Maalouf NM, Pearle MS, et al. Use of the national health and nutrition examination survey to calculate the impact of obesity and diabetes on cost and prevalence of urolithiasis in 2030. Eur Urol. 2014;66:724–729. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geraghty R, Proietti S, Traxer O, Archer M, Somani BK. Worldwide impact of warmer seasons on the incidence of renal colic and kidney stone disease: evidence from a systematic review of literature. J Endourol. 2017;31(8):729–735. doi:10.1089/end.2017.0123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong Y, Cook P, Roderick P, Somani BK. Metabolic syndrome and kidney stone disease: a systematic review of literature. J Endourol. 2016;30(3):246–253. doi:10.1089/end.2015.0567
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishii H, Couzins M, Aboumarzouk O, et al. Outcomes of systematic review of ureteroscopy for stone disease in obese and morbidly obese population. J Endourol. 2016;30(2):135–145. doi:10.1089/end.2015.0547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK. Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol. 2017;31:547–556. doi:10.1089/end.2016.0895
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E. Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. The Lancet. 1980;2:1265–1268. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(80)92335-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nafie S, Dyer JE, Minhas JS, et al. Efficacy of a mobile lithotripsy service: a one-year review of 222 patients. Scand J Urol. 2014;48:324–327. doi:10.3109/21681805.2014.886288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Türk C, NeIsius A, Petrik A, et al. EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, et al. Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline, Part I. J Urol. 2016;196:1153–1160. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagtap J, Mishra S, Bhattu A, Ganpule A, Sabnis R, Desai M. 25‐year shockwave lithotripsy experience. BJU Int. 2014;114:748–753. doi:10.1111/bju.12808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshioka T, Ikenoue T, Hashimoto H, et al. Development and validation of a prediction model for failed shockwave lithotripsy of upper urinary tract calculi using computed tomography information: the S3HoCKwave score. World J Urol. 2020;38(12):3267–3273. doi:10.1007/s00345-020-03125-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewin A, Sriprasad S, Somani BK. Role of urinary biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of kidney stone disease. Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31(2):71–79. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000856
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez-Castro Ellendt E, Martínez-Piñeiro JA. La ureterorrenoscopia transuretral. Un actual proceder urológico [Transurethral ureteroscopy. A current urological procedure]. Arch Esp Urol. 1980;33(5):445–460. Spanish.
   Google Scholar
• Hiller SC, Qi J, Leavitt D, et al. Ureteroscopy in patients taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy: practice patterns and outcomes in a surgical collaborative. J Urol. 2021;205(3):833–840. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Coninck V, Keller EX, Somani B, et al. Complications of ureteroscopy: a complete overview. World J Urol. 2020;38:2147–2166. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-03012-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehurst L, Jones P, Somani BK. Mortality from kidney stone disease (KSD) as reported in the literature over the last two decades: a systematic review. World J Urol. 2019;37(5):759–776. doi:10.1007/s00345-018-2424-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang J, Xie D, Xiong R, et al. The application of suctioning flexible ureteroscopy with intelligent pressure control in treating upper urinary tract calculi on patients with a solitary kidney. Urology. 2018;111:44–47. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geraghty RM, Jones P, Herrmann TRW, et al. Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36:1783–1793. doi:10.1007/s00345-018-2320-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darrad M, Sibartie T, Inglis J, Rukin N. Is acute ureteroscopy for painful ureteric colic cost effective and beneficial for patients? A cost-analysis. J Clin Urol. 2017;10(1):17–21. doi:10.1177/2051415816658417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mckay A, Somani BK, Pietropaolo A, et al. Comparison of primary and delayed ureteroscopy for ureteric stones: a prospective non-randomized comparative study. Urol Int. 2021;105(1–2):90–94. doi:10.1159/000510213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez Castro E, Osther PJ, Jinga V, et al.; CROES Ureteroscopy Global Study Group. 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. 2014;66(1):102–109. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagley DH. Ureteroscopic surgery: changing times and perspectives. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31(1):1–4. doi:10.1016/S0094-0143(03)00088-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geavlete P, Multescu R, Geavlete B. Pushing the boundaries of ureteroscopy: current status and future perspectives. Nat Rev Urol. 2014;11(7):373–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emiliani E, Traxer O. Single use and disposable flexible ureteroscopes. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27(2):176–181. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warde N. Stones: safety guidewire unnecessary during flexible ureteroscopy for routine cases of nephrolithiasis. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7(12):645. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2010.193
   Google Scholar
• Sarkissian C, Korman E, Hendlin K, Monga M. Systematic evaluation of hybrid guidewires: shaft stiffness, lubricity, and tip configuration. Urology. 2012;79(3):513–517. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.10.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinck BD, Emmott AS, Omar M, Tarplin S, Chew BH, Monga M. Hybrid guidewires: analysis and comparison of the mechanical properties and safety profiles. Can Urol Assoc J. 2019;13(2):59–63. doi:10.5489/cuaj.5396
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong VK, Aminoltejari K, Almutairi K, Lange D, Chew BH. Controversies associated with ureteral access sheath placement during ureteroscopy. Investig Clin Urol. 2020;61(5):455–463. doi:10.4111/icu.20200278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahams HM, Stoller ML. The argument against the routine use of ureteral access sheaths. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31(1):83–87. doi:10.1016/S0094-0143(03)00085-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oğuz U, Şahin T, Şenocak Ç, et al. Factors associated with postoperative pain after retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney stones. Turk J Urol. 2017;43(3):303–308. doi:10.5152/tud.2017.58997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosayyebi A, Manes C, Carugo D, Somani BK. Advances in ureteral stent design and materials. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19(5):35. doi:10.1007/s11934-018-0779-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver R, Wells H, Traxer O, et al.; YAU Group. Ureteric stents on extraction strings: a systematic review of literature. Urolithiasis. 2018;46(2):129–136. doi:10.1007/s00240-016-0898-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rassweiler MC, Michel MS, Ritter M, Honeck P. Magnetic ureteral stent removal without cystoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. J Endourol. 2017;31(8):762–766. doi:10.1089/end.2017.0051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Divakaruni N, Palmer CJ, Tek P, et al. Forgotten ureteral stents: who’s at risk? J Endourol. 2013;27(8):1051–1054. doi:10.1089/end.2012.0754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hameed BMZ, Shah MJ, Naik N, et al. Are technology-driven mobile phone applications (Apps) the new currency for digital stent registries and patient communication: prospective outcomes using urostentz app. Adv Urol. 2021;2021:6612371. doi:10.1155/2021/6612371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi HB, Newns N, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX, Timoney AG. Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life measure. J Urol. 2003;169(3):1060–1064. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000049198.53424.1d
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran MGB, Sut MK, Collie J, et al. Development of a disease-specific ureteral calculus patient reported outcome measurement instrument. J Endourol. 2018;32(6):548–558. doi:10.1089/end.2017.0795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santiago JE, Hollander AB, Soni SD, Link RE, Mayer WA. To dust or not to dust: a systematic review of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy techniques. Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18(4):32. doi:10.1007/s11934-017-0677-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang HW, Lee H, Teichman JM, Oh J, Kim J, Welch AJ. Dependence of calculus retropulsion on pulse duration during Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy. Lasers Surg Med. 2006;38(8):762–772. doi:10.1002/lsm.20376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldoukhi AH, Roberts WW, Hall TL, Ghani KR. Holmium laser lithotripsy in the new stone age: dust or bust? Front Surg. 2017;4:57. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2017.00057
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pietropaolo A, Jones P, Whitehurst L, Somani BK. Role of ‘dusting and pop-dusting’ using a high-powered (100 W) laser machine in the treatment of large stones (≥15 mm): prospective outcomes over 16 months. Urolithiasis. 2019;47(4):391–394. doi:10.1007/s00240-018-1076-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys MR, Shah OD, Monga M, et al. Dusting versus basketing during ureteroscopy-which technique is more efficacious? A prospective multicenter trial from the EDGE research consortium. J Urol. 2018;199(5):1272–1276. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elhilali MM, Badaan S, Ibrahim A, Andonian S. Use of the Moses technology to improve holmium laser lithotripsy outcomes: a preclinical study. J Endourol. 2017;31(6):598–604. doi:10.1089/end.2017.0050
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxer O, Keller EX. Thulium fiber laser: the new player for kidney stone treatment? A comparison with Holmium: YAG laser. World J Urol. 2020;38(8):1883–1894. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-02654-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schembri M, Sahu J, Aboumarzouk O, Pietropaolo A, Somani BK. Thulium fiber laser: the new kid on the block. Turk J Urol. 2020;46(Supp.1):S1–S10. doi:10.5152/tud.2020.20093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binbay M, Tepeler A, Singh A, et al. Evaluation of pneumatic versus holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted ureteral stones. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011;43(4):989–995. doi:10.1007/s11255-011-9951-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delvecchio FC, Kuo RL, Preminger GM. Clinical efficacy of combined lithoclast and lithovac stone removal during ureteroscopy. J Urol. 2000;164(1):40–42. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67444-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed M, Pedro RN, Kieley S, Akornor JW, Durfee WK, Monga M. Systematic evaluation of ureteral occlusion devices: insertion, deployment, stone migration, and extraction. Urology. 2009;73(5):976–980. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.12.048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fathelbab TK, Abdelhamid AM, Anwar AZM, et al. Prevention of stone retropulsion during ureteroscopy: limitations in resources invites revival of old techniques. Arab J Urol. 2020;18(4):252–256. doi:10.1080/2090598X.2020.1805966
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingsworth JM, Canales BK, Rogers MA, et al. Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016;355:i6112. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veser J, Seitz C. The status of medical expulsive therapy in the age of evidence-based medicine. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6(Suppl 1):S18. doi:10.21037/atm.2018.09.09
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yallapa S, Amer T, Jones P, et al. Natural history of conservatively managed ureteral stones: analysis of 6600 patients. J Endourol. 2018;32(5):371–379. doi:10.1089/end.2017.0848
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turgut H, Sarier M. Evaluation of the efficacy of masturbation on distal ureteral stones: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2020. doi:10.1007/s11255-020-02672-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarier M, Duman I, Callioglu M, et al. Outcomes of conservative management of asymptomatic live donor kidney stones. Urology. 2018;118:43–46. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.04.035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May PC, Bailey MR, Harper JD. Ultrasonic propulsion of kidney stones. Curr Opin Urol. 2016;26(3):264–270. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper JD, Cunitz BW, Dunmire B, et al. First in human clinical trial of ultrasonic propulsion of kidney stones. J Urol. 2016;195(4 Part 1):956–964. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah M, Naik N, Somani BK, Hameed BMZ. Artificial intelligence (AI) in urology-current use and future directions: an iTRUE study. Turk J Urol. 2020;46(Supp. 1):S27–S39. doi:10.5152/tud.2020.20117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozan AA, Chan LH, Biyani CS. Current status of simulation training in urology: a non-systematic review. Res Rep Urol. 2020;12:111–128. doi:10.2147/RRU.S237808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veneziano D, Ploumidis A, Proietti S, et al.; ESU Training Group. Validation of the endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (EST-s1): a novel EAU training and assessment tool for basic endoscopic stone treatment skills-a collaborative work by ESU, ESUT and EULIS. World J Urol. 2020;38(1):193–205. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-02736-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veneziano D, Ahmed K, Van Cleynenbreugel B, et al. Development methodology of the novel endoscopic stone treatment step 1 training/assessment curriculum: an international collaborative work by European Association of Urology sections. J Endourol. 2017;31(9):934–941. doi:10.1089/end.2017.0248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elgebaly O, Abdeldayem H, Idris F, Elrifai A, Fahmy A. Antegrade mini-percutaneous flexible ureteroscopy versus retrograde ureteroscopy for treating impacted proximal ureteric stones of 1–2 cm: a prospective randomised study. Arab J Urol. 2020;18(3):176–180. doi:10.1080/2090598X.2020.1769385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter M, Lynch C, Appu S, Kourambas J. Surgery illustrated–focus on details: access sheath-aided percutaneous antegrade ureteroscopy; a novel approach to the ureter. BJU Int. 2011;108(4):620–622. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10538.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai S, Jiao B, Diao T, 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao-jian G, Lin LJ, Yan X. Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. World J Urol. 2013;31(6):1605–1610. doi:10.1007/s00345-013-1026-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proietti S, Giusti G, Desai M, Ganpule AP. A critical review of miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is smaller better? Eur Urol Focus. 2017;3(1):56–61. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2017.05.001
   Google Scholar
• Wright A, Rukin N, Smith D, et al. ‘Mini, ultra, micro’ – nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques. Ther Adv Urol. 2016;8(2):142–146. doi:10.1177/1756287215617674
   Google Scholar
• Schembri M, Agarwal V, Pietropaolo A, Somani B. Outcomes of loco-regional anaesthesia in ureteroscopy for stone disease: a systematic review. Curr Opin Urol. 2020;30(5):726–734. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000791
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kallidonis P, Ntasiotis P, Knoll T, et al. Minimally invasive surgical ureterolithotomy versus ureteroscopic lithotripsy for large ureteric stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur Urol Focus. 2017;3(6):554–566. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.006
   Google Scholar