Skip to main content
Log in

Developments in the ureteroscopes, techniques and accessories associated with laser lithotripsy

  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Two stages in the development of the technique of laser lithotripsy are described. In the first series, spanning 1985–1988, three consecutive groups of patients are compared. In the first 100 patients, 11.5-F ureteroscopes were used. Access on first retrograde attempt was successful in 73%; 3% developed strictures; the ureteric perforation rate was 7%; and 12% required nephrostomy drainage. These results contrast with those of the third group in this series, consisting of 200 patients using a miniaturised ureteroscope. Access on the first retrograde attempt was successful in 99%. There were no strictures, no perforations and no requirements for nephrostomy drainage. (The second group of 100 patients using a range of rigid ureteroscopes was intermediate in its complication rate: 2% developed strictures, the ureteric perforation rate was 3%, and 6% required nephrostomy drainage.) In the second series, spanning 1989–1990, the procedures were performed by all grades of urologists using miniaturised endoscopes. An in-depth audit was performed and each patient was followed until completely clear of fragments. The stones were successfully accessed on the first attempt in 213 cases (89%). In group A (139 patients, no basket used) 32 renal units (23%) were cleared of stone fragments immediately following the procedure, rising to 78 units (56%) by 3 months and 99 units (71%) beyond 3 months follow-up. Some fragments remained in 40 renal units and were cleared by further ureteroscopy, ESWL or PCNL, with the exception of 1 patient who had small residual fragments despite ESWL for fragments flushed to the kidney. In group B (74 patients, basked used) 41 renal units (55%) were cleared of stone fragments immediately following the procedure, rising to 66 (86%) by 3 months. The remaining patients were cleared by additional ESWL for a renal fragment (1 case) or a second ureteroscopy (7 cases). Significant complications have been avoided by the adoption of small-calibre ureteroscopes. Simple fragmentation of a stone leaving the debris to pass spontaneously is less effective than making an attempt to clear the ureter at the time of the procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bagley DH (1990) Distal ureteroscopy with the 6.9-F rigid endoscope. (Abst) Endourol 4:S65

  2. Biester R, Gillenwater JY (1986) Complications following ureteroscopy. J Urol 136:380–382

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chaussy CG (1988) ESWL: past, present and future. J Endourol 2:97–105

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dretler SP (1988) Techniques of laser lithotripsy. J Endourol 2:123–130

    Google Scholar 

  5. Evans RJ, Wingfield DD, Morollo BA et al. (1988) Ureteral stone manipulation before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 139:33–35

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ford TF, Payne SR, Wickham JEA (1984) The impact of transurethral ureteroscopy on the management of ureteric calcui. Br J Urol 56:602–603

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fuchs GJ, Fuchs AM (1991) Direct contact ureterolithotripsy with electrohydraulic lithotrite (Calcutrips) for complex ureteral stones. (Abst) J Endourol 5:S65

  8. Green DF, Lytton B (1985) Early experience with electrohydraulic lithotripsy of ureteral calculi using direct vision ureteroscopy. J Urol 133:767

    Google Scholar 

  9. Guetta T, Schaetz P, Teillac P, Le Duc A (1990) Retrograde ureteroscopy for ureteric stones. A retrospective study of 130 cases. (Abst) J Endourol 4:S130

  10. Hendriks AJM, Bierkens AF, Oosterhof GON, Debruyne FMJ (1990) Treatment of proximal and midureteral calculi: a randomised trial of in situ and pushback extracorporeal lithotripsy. J Endourol 4:353–361

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hinman F, Lee-Brown RK (1924) Pyelovenous back flow. JAMA 82:607–613

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kahn RI (1986) Endourological treatment of ureteral calculi. J Urol 135:23

    Google Scholar 

  13. Keating MA, Heney NM, Young HH, Kerr WS, O'Leary MP, Dretler SP (1986) Ureteroscopy: the inital experience. 135:689

  14. Khuri FJ, Peartree RJ, Ruotolo RA, Valco JR (1985) Rigid ureteropyeloscopy. N Y State J Med 85:205

    Google Scholar 

  15. Koch J, Balk N, Wilbert DM, Strohmaier WL, Bichler KH (1991) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of upper ureteral stones: in situ v push and smash treatment. J Endourol 5:195–196

    Google Scholar 

  16. Landers BR, Watson GM (1991) Irrigation characteristics of ureteroscopes studied both in the open and in a model of an unobstructed ureter. (Abst) J Endourol 5:S64

  17. Lingeman JE, Sonda LP, Kahnoski TA, Coury TA, Newman DM, Mosbaugh PG, Mertz JHO, Steele RE, Frank B (1986) Ureteral stone management: emerging concepts. J Urol 135:1172–1174

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lytton B, Green DF, Weiss RM (1985) Complications of ureteroscopy. J Urol 133:238

    Google Scholar 

  19. Manzone DJ, Chang B (1988) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of stones in the upper, mid, and lower ureter. J Endourol 2:107–111

    Google Scholar 

  20. Morgenthaler A, Bridge SS, Dretler SP (1990) Management of the impacted ureteral calculus. J Urol 143:267–270

    Google Scholar 

  21. Narath P (1940) The hydromechanics of the calyx renalis. J Urol 43:143–176

    Google Scholar 

  22. Perez-Castro E, Martinez-Pineiro JA (1982) Uretero-renal endoscopy. Eur Urol 8:117–120

    Google Scholar 

  23. Preminger G, Kettelhut M, Elkins SL (1989) Ureteral stenting during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: help of hindrance? J Urol 142:32–35

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sosa RE, Huffman JL, Riehle RA, Darracott Vaughan E (1985) Ureteropyeloscopy: pitfalls and early complications of ureteral stone extraction. (Abst) J Urol 133:320

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sosa ER, Bagley DH, Huffman JL (1988) Complications of ureteropyeloscopy. In: Huffman JL, Bagley DH, Lyon ES (eds) Ureteroscopy. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stackl W, Marberger M (1986) Late sequelae of the management of ureteral calculi with the ureterorenoscope. J Urol 136:383–386

    Google Scholar 

  27. Watson GM (1992) New instrumentation and tricks of the trade for rigid endoscopy above the iliac vessels. J Endourol (submitted)

  28. Watson GM, Wickham JEA (1989) The development of a laser and miniaturised ureteroscope system for ureteric stone management. World J Urol 7:147–150

    Google Scholar 

  29. Watson GM, Murray S, Dretler SP, Parrish JAP (1987) An assessment of the pulsed dye laser for fragmenting calculi in the pig ureter. J Urol 137:386–389

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wilbert DM, Voges GE, Mueller SC, Alken P (1987) ESWL des Harnleitersteins: klinische Ergebnisse mit der lokalen Stoßwellenlithotripsie. Urologe [A] 26:317–320

    Google Scholar 

  31. Willscher MK, Conway JF, Babayan RK, Morrisseau P, Sant GR, Bertagnoll A (1988) Safety and efficacy of electrohydraulic lithotripsy by ureteroscopy. J Urol 140:317–320

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wilson WT, Preminger GM (1990) Intrarenal pressures generated during flexible deflectable ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol 4:135–143

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Watson, G.M., Landers, B., Nauth-Misir, R. et al. Developments in the ureteroscopes, techniques and accessories associated with laser lithotripsy. World J Urol 11, 19–25 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182166

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182166

Keywords

Navigation