Current approaches to the selection of treatment methods for patients with upper ureteral stones

封面


如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅或者付费存取

详细

Urolithiasis occupies one of the leading places in the structure of urological diseases. In this case, ureterolithiasis is observed in at least 50% of cases. Of all the localizations of stones in the ureter, the most difficult problem is stones in the upper third, since with this location of the calculus, a wide range of treatment methods with different effectiveness and safety profiles can be selected. The review includes modern publications on studies of the effectiveness of conservative and surgical methods of treating patients with stones in the upper third of the ureter, including lithokinetic and litholytic therapy, remote shock wave lithotripsy, contact ureterolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and also describes the factors influencing the choice of treatment method. The results of using various methods of surgical treatment of ureterolithiasis, the likelihood of additional interventions, the frequency, nature and degree of intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed. It is emphasized that the introduction of new technologies has changed approaches to the choice of treatment method for patients with upper ureter stones, which has increased its effectiveness and reduced the risk of complications. At the same time, many aspects of surgical treatment of patients with upper ureter stones remain a subject of debate.

全文:

受限制的访问

作者简介

Zaur Pachuliya

Kirov Military Medical Academy

Email: pachuliya.zaur@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0008-7603-1491

MD

俄罗斯联邦, Saint Petersburg

Mikhail Paronnikov

Kirov Military Medical Academy

Email: paronnikov@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0005-1762-6100
SPIN 代码: 6147-7357

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine)

俄罗斯联邦, Saint Petersburg

Vladimir Protoshchak

Kirov Military Medical Academy

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: protoshakurology@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4996-2927
SPIN 代码: 6289-4250

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

俄罗斯联邦, Saint Petersburg

参考

  1. LLC “Russian Society of Urologists”. Urolithiasis. Clinical recommendations of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. Moscow; 2024. 118 p. (In Russ.)
  2. Skolarikos A, Jung H, Neisius A, et al. EAU Guidelines on urolithiasis. European Association of Urology; 2024.
  3. Kaprin AD, Apolikhin OI, Sivkov AV, et al. The incidence of urolithiasis in the Russian Federation from 2005 to 2020. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2022;15(2)10–17. doi: 10.29188/2222-8543-2022-15-2-10-17 EDN: EATILC
  4. Protoshchak VV, Paronnikov MV, Orlov DN, et al. Medical and statistical characteristi of the incidence of urolithiasis in the Armed Forces. Military medical journal. 2020;341(11):11–18. doi: 10.17816/RMMJ82357 EDN: EAQQIE
  5. Apolikhin OI, Sivkov AV, Komarova VA, et al. Incidence of urolithiasis in the Russian Federation (2005–2016). Experimental and clinical urology. 2018;(4):4–14. EDN: VRTKIC
  6. Borumandnia N, Fattahi P, Talebi A, et al. Longitudinal trend of urolithiasis incidence rates among world countries during past decades. BMC Urol. 2023;23(1):166. doi: 10.1186/s12894-023-01336-0
  7. Moon YJ, Kim H-W, Kim JB, et al. Distribution of ureteral stones and factors affecting their location and expulsion in patients with renal colic. Korean J Urol. 2015;56(10):717–721. doi: 10.4111/kju.2015.56.10.717
  8. 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
  9. Campschroer T, Zhu X, Vernooij RW, Lock MT. Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4(4):CD008509. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008509.pub3
  10. Dutov VV. Dissolving kidney stones: for whom? When? How? Medical Council. 2016;(9):84–90. doi: 10.21518/2079-701X-2016-9-84-90. EDN: VJKRAN
  11. Alyaev YuG, Rudenko VI. Modern aspects of drug treatment of patients with kidney stone disease. Effective pharmacotherapy. 2016;(41):10–15. EDN: XWUPHR
  12. Frolova EA, Tsarichenko DG, Saenko VS, et al. Dissolution of uric acid stones in the ureter. Urologiia. 2022;(6):56–60. doi: 10.18565/urology.2022.6.56-60 EDN: MQKLAX
  13. 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
  14. Zeng G, Zhong W, Chaussy CG, et al. International alliance of urolithiasis guideline on shockwave lithotripsy. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9(3):513–523. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.11.013
  15. Suarez-Ibarrola R, Hein S, Reis G, et al. Current and future applications of machine and deep learning in urology: a review of the literature on urolithiasis, renal cell carcinoma, and bladder and prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2020;38(10):2329–2347. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-03000-5
  16. Wu W, Zhang J, Yi R, et al. A simple predictive model with internal validation for assessment of stone-left after ureteroscopic lithotripsy in upper ureteral stones. Transl Androl Urol. 2022;11(6):786–793. doi: 10.21037/tau-22-22
  17. Abedi AR, Razzaghi MR, Allameh F, et al. Pneumatic lithotripsy versus laser lithotripsy for ureteral stones. J Lasers Med Sci. 2018;9(4):233–236. doi: 10.15171/jlms.2018.42
  18. Anan G, Kudo D, Matsuoka T. What are the predictors of residual stone after ureteroscopy for urolithiasis? Transl Androl Urol. 2022;11(8):1071–1073. doi: 10.21037/tau-22-438
  19. Xiong Y, Liu J, Zhao T. Application of flexible holmium laser sheath in rigid ureteroscopy for the treatment of impacted upper ureteral stones. Arch Esp Urol. 2023;76(1):50–55. doi: 10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20237601.4
  20. Mamedov EA, Dutov VV, Bazaev VV. Complications of contact ureteral lithotripsy. Urologiia. 2017;(4):113–119. doi: 10.18565/urol.2017.4.113-119 EDN: ZFVHVZ
  21. Mustafa M, Al Zabadi H, Mansour S, Nabulsi A. Endoscopic management of upper and lower ureteric stones using pneumatic lithotripter: A retrospective medical records review. Res Rep Urol. 2023;15:77–83. doi: 10.2147/RRU.S392881
  22. Wang Q, Guo J, Hu H, et al. Rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stones: A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171478. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171478
  23. Wang Y, Zhong B, Yang X, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of URSL, RPLU, and MPCNL for treatment of large upper impacted ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Urol. 2017;17(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s12894-017-0236-0
  24. Wu T, Duan X, Chen S, et al. Ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of large proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int. 2017;99(3):308–319. doi: 10.1159/000471773
  25. Topaloglu H, Karakoyunlu N, Sari S, et al. A comparison of antegrade percutaneous and laparoscopic approaches in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:691946. doi: 10.1155/2014/691946
  26. Prakash J, Singh V, Kumar M, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic versus open mini-incision ureterolithotomy for upper- and mid-ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(2): 133–139. doi: 10.1007/s00240-013-0624-1
  27. Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, et al. 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
  28. Torricelli FC, Monga M, Marchini GS, et al. Semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large upper ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42(4):645–654. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0696
  29. 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
  30. Popov SV, Guseinov RG, Gadjiev NK, et al. Percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: overview own experience use. Urology Herald. 2021;9(2):92–99. doi: 10.21886/2308-6424-2021-9-2-92-99 EDN: XGLSCC
  31. Taguchi K, Hamamoto S, Osaga S, et al. Comparison of antegrade and retrograde ureterolithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10(3):1179–1191. doi: 10.21037/tau-20-1296
  32. Bhat A, Singh V, Bhat M, et al. Comparison of antegrade percutaneous versus retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy for upper ureteric calculus for stone clearance, morbidity, and complications. Indian J Urol. 2019;35(1):48–53. doi: 10.4103/iju.IJU_89_18
  33. Tiwari AK, Sarkar D, Pal DK. Emergency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: A study on feasibility and efficacy in stone clearance and reducing morbidity in ureteric and renal stones with colic. Urologia. 2023;90(3):516–521. doi: 10.1177/03915603221140444
  34. Grabsky AM. The effectiveness of extracorporal shock wave lithotripsy of urinary stones with different chemical composition. Experimental and clinical urology. 2016;(3):112–115. EDN: YHTWSJ
  35. Patrashkov T, Mikhailov P, Lilov A, Nikolov S. Treatment of renal and ureteral stones by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urology and Nephrology. 1988;(6):9–11. (In Russ.)
  36. Al-Shukri SH, Tkachuk VN, Dubinsky VY. Remote shockwave lithotripsy at different clinical forms of nephrolithiasis. Saint Petersburg: NIIH SPbSU Publ.; 1997. 190 p. (In Russ.)
  37. Darenkov AF, Dzeranov NK, Chudnovskaya MV, et al. Influence of stone chemical composition on contact lithotripsy. In: Proceedings of the IV All-Union urology congress. Moscow; 1999. P. 33–34. (In Russ.)
  38. Li W-M, Wu W-J, Chou Y-H, et al. Clinical predictors of stone fragmentation using slow-rate shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Int. 2007;79(2):124–128. doi: 10.1159/000106324
  39. Ibrahim A, Elatreisy A, Khogeer A, et al. Can we predict the ancillary treatments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal and upper ureteral stones? Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022;94(4):439–442. doi: 10.4081/aiua.2022.4.439
  40. Al-Naemi RSM, Aldosky HYY, Shukri BSA. By-products of lithotripsy: Are they related to abdominal fat and wave characteristics? J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2019;14(2):156–162. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2019.01.003
  41. Kaya C, Kaynak Y, Karabag A, Aykaç A. The predictive role of abdominal fat parameters and stone density on SWL outcomes. Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2020;16(1):80–87. doi: 10.2174/1573405614666180927112127
  42. Ishii H, Couzins M, Aboumarzouk O, et al. Outcomes of systematic review of ureteroscopy for stone disease in the obese and morbidly obese population. J Endourol. 2016;30(2):135–145. doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0547
  43. Alsmadi JK. Shock Wave Lithotripsy outcomes for upper and lower ureteral stones in non-obese and non-pre-stented adults: Is one session sufficient? Cureus. 2022;14(9):e29592. doi: 10.7759/cureus.29592
  44. Li K, Lin T, Zhang C, et al. Optimal frequency of shock wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Urol. 2013;190(4)1260–1267. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.075
  45. Skuginna V, Nguyen DP, Seiler R, et al. Does stepwise voltage ramping protect the kidney from injury during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2016;69(2):267–273. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.017
  46. Manzoor S, Hashmi AH, Sohail MA, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. ureterorenoscopic (URS) manipulation in proximal ureteric stone. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2013;23(10):726–730. doi: 10.2013/JCPSP.726730
  47. Mittal V, Srivastava A, Kappor R, et al. Standardized grading of shock wave lithotripsy complications with modified Clavien system. Urol Int. 2016;97(3):273–278. doi: 10.1159/000446968
  48. Abdelbary AM, Al-Dessoukey AA, Moussa AS, et al. Value of early second session shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of upper ureteric stones compared to laser ureteroscopy. World J Urol. 2021;39(8):3089–3093. doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03560-x
  49. Drake T, Grivas N, Dabestani S, et al. What are the benefits and harms of ureteroscopy compared with shock-wave lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral stones? A systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;72(5):772–786. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.016
  50. Jia B, Liu J, Hu B, Chen Z. Using retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of impacted upper ureteric calculi. Transl Androl Urol. 2022;11(1):104–109. doi: 10.21037/tau-21-115
  51. Sharma G, Pareek T, Tyagi S, 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

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML

版权所有 © Eco-Vector, 2025

许可 URL: https://eco-vector.com/for_authors.php#07

СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 89281 от 21.04.2025.