Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus & ISI's SCI  
Users online: 12507  
Home | Subscribe | Feedback | Login 
About Latest Articles Back-Issues Articlesmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Etcetera Contact
 :: Next article
 :: Previous article 
 :: Table of Contents
 ::  Similar in PUBMED
 ::  Search Pubmed for
 ::  Search in Google Scholar for
 ::Related articles
 ::  Article in PDF (146 KB)
 ::  Citation Manager
 ::  Access Statistics
 ::  Reader Comments
 ::  Email Alert *
 ::  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free) 

  IN THIS Article
 ::  Abstract
 ::  Subjects and methods
 ::  Results
 ::  Discussion
 ::  Conclusion
 ::  References
 ::  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded178    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2001  |  Volume : 47  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 177-80

Symptomatic small non-obstructing lower ureteric calculi: comparison of ureteroscopy and extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

R. G. Stone Urological Research Institute, Mumbai and New Delhi, India., India

Correspondence Address:
M G Andankar
R. G. Stone Urological Research Institute, Mumbai and New Delhi, India.
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 11832618

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

 :: Abstract 

OBJECTIVE: To compare the success, efficacy and complications of ureteroscopy (URS) and extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the treatment of symptomatic small non obstructing lower ureteric calculi. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This prospective non-randomised study was conducted simultaneously at two urological referral centres, included 280 patients with symptomatic small (4-10 mm) lower ureteric calculi (situated below the sacroiliac joint), with good renal function on intravenous urography. Patients were offered both the treatment options. One hundred and sixty patients chose ureteroscopy, whereas 120 patients were treated by ESWL. Standard techniques of ureteroscopy and ESWL were employed. Patients were followed-up to assess the success rates and complications of the two procedures. RESULTS: Ureteroscopy achieved complete stone clearance in one session in 95% of patients. In six patients ureteroscopy had failed initially and was later accomplished in second session improving the success rate to 98.7%. Two patients had a proximal migration of calculus that needed ESWL. Of the 120 patients treated by ESWL, 90% achieved stone free status at three months. Ureteroscopy was needed for twelve patients (10%) where ESWL failed to achieve stone clearance. There were no significant ESWL related complications. ESWL was administered on outpatient basis, while patients needed hospitalisation and anaesthesia for ureteroscopy. CONCLUSION: ESWL can be the primary mode of treatment for symptomatic small non-obstructing lower ureteric calculi as it is minimally invasive and safe. Ureteroscopy can be offered to patients who demand immediate relief or when ESWL fails.

Keywords: Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Comparative Study, Female, Human, Lithotripsy, Male, Middle Age, Prospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Ureteral Calculi, therapy,Ureteroscopy,

How to cite this article:
Andankar M G, Maheshwari P N, Saple A L, Mehta V, Varshney A, Bansal B. Symptomatic small non-obstructing lower ureteric calculi: comparison of ureteroscopy and extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Postgrad Med 2001;47:177

How to cite this URL:
Andankar M G, Maheshwari P N, Saple A L, Mehta V, Varshney A, Bansal B. Symptomatic small non-obstructing lower ureteric calculi: comparison of ureteroscopy and extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Postgrad Med [serial online] 2001 [cited 2023 Sep 26];47:177. Available from:

The changes that have taken place in the management of urinary calculus disease within the last decade and a half have been truly remarkable. Whereas, in the past the urologist was faced with only two management options, to operate or not to operate, the numbers of therapeutic choices now have vastly increased. The development of newer endourological instruments meant that calculi could now be managed by lesser invasive means. The ultimate concept of management of stones, ‘non invasion’, has become possible with the increasing use of extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) worldwide.

Following the report by Perez Castro and Martinez Piniero,[1] transurethral ureteroscopy has rapidly replaced surgery in the treatment of ureteric stone. Since calculi located in the upper ureter lie within the reach of conventional extra corporeal shock wave treatment, ureteroscopy has gained wider acceptance for stones situated distally in the iliac or pelvic ureter. Although very high success rate may be achieved with ureteroscopy, serious complications can be encountered in about 2% of patients.[2]

Over the past few years there have been several studies comparing ureteroscopy and ESWL for the management of lower ureteric calculi. Studies have shown that ESWL has satisfactory results in the management of lower ureteric calculi. Ureteroscopy has an edge in the patients who have large and obstructing calculi with poor renal function. This study was planned in a select group of patients with symptomatic but small and non obstructing lower ureteric calculi.

  ::   Subjects and methods Top

In this prospective study carried over a period of three years from February 98 to January 01, patients with symptomatic small lower ureteric calculi (4 10 mm), with good renal function on intravenous urography were chosen for treatment. Patients with calculi less than 6 mm. were initially given a trial of conservative treatment. Those patients having persistent pain or not showing movement of the stone on six-week follow up were offered intervention. Only the calculi situated below the sacroiliac joint as seen radiologically were selected in this study. The calculi less than 4 mm or more than 10 mm or those in children and in patients with poor renal status, active urinary tract infection, hydronephrosis and ureteric obstruction were excluded from the study.

After defining the indications of treatment, the patients were made aware of both the modalities of treatment and their probable complications. The pros and cons of ureteroscopy and ESWL were explained. The need for anaesthesia, stent, urethral manipulation, possible complications, need for repeated follow up especially after ESWL, and the cost factor involved, was explained to the patient. The patients were then asked to choose the mode of treatment.

Ureteroscopy was performed with rigid 8 Fr Wolf ureteroscope following dilatation of ureteric orifice. The calculus was fragmented with ballistic energy or holmium laser. Ureteric catheter or a JJ stent was kept in all the patients for 24 hours to 3 weeks. All patients were administered prophylactic antibiotic. ESWL was administered on a ‘Siemens Lithostar’ electromagnetic lithotriptor. Patients who were anxious or could not tolerate the discomfort were given sedatives and analgesics. ESWL was administered in prone position.

Successful treatment was defined as complete stone clearance. After ESWL, complete stone clearance was assessed at three months follow up. The follow up schedule was similar in both the groups of patients. Plain X-rays were obtained 1, 2 and 6 weeks after discharge and thereafter if residual fragments persisted.

  ::   Results Top

One hundred and sixty patients were treated with ureteroscopy (Male/Female = 102/58), while 120 patients were treated by ESWL (Male/Female = 82/38). The patient’s age varied between 18 and 70 years, with maximum number of patients between 21 to 30 years of age.

Ureteroscopy was performed under general or spinal anaesthesia. ESWL did not need anaesthesia, although 24 patients (20%) needed sedation or analgesia for ESWL. After ureteroscopy, ureteric catheter or stent was kept in all patients for 24 hours to 3 weeks. Only four patients required JJ stents in ESWL group. These patients presented with ureteric colic not responding to conservative treatment. Here stents were placed initially for management of colic and the patients later chose ESWL as their treatment option. A total of 120 patients required 224 sessions of lithotripsy with average number of 3500 shock waves at 3.0 kV.

The stone clearance rate was 95% in first session of ureteroscopy. Repeat ureteroscopy was however required in six patients after four weeks. In these patients the initial attempt of ureteroscopy failed due to failure to adequately dilate the ureteric orifice in five and submucosal dissection with false passage in one patient. The proximal migration of calculus occurred in two patients. These patients were treated by ESWL.

ESWL achieved 90% stone free rate at three months. There were no major complications, although two patients developed fever and infection. Seven patients needed analgesics for one day for pain after ESWL. Twelve patients (10%) where ESWL failed were treated by ureteroscopy. The mean hospital stay in ureteroscopy was two days. ESWL was administered on out-patient basis but all patients needed frequent visits for follow-up.

  ::   Discussion Top

The management of distal ureteric stone continues to invoke controversy. Although the best results emerge from the “marriage of ESWL to ureteroscopy” says Robert Reihle,[3] not all centres can afford this alliance. Nevertheless, the question remains as to what constitutes the current algorithm of management for lower ureteric calculi? Surely, no definite answer exists today.

Ureteroscopy is preferably done under regional or general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia is preferred, as patients perceive pain due to over distension of the pelvi-calyceal system when under spinal or local anesthesia.[4],[5]

The treatment with ESWL on Siemens Lithostar electromagnetic lithotriptor however, does not require anaesthesia. Patients who are anxious or perceive pain were given intravenous sedation or local anaesthesia in form of lidocaine cream.[6],[7]

In our study, general or spinal anaesthesia was opted for ureteroscopy in all 160 patients. ESWL did not need anaesthesia, although 24 patients required sedation or analgesics during the procedure.

The stone size in our series ranged from 4 mm to 10 mm, with a majority of patients in 6 to 8 mm group. Patients with stones larger than 10 mm were treated by ureteroscopy and were not included in this study. Success rate for larger stone is definitely better with ureteroscopy[8],[9] than with shock wave lithotripsy. The number of sessions, radiation exposure, time required for evacuation of fragments, increases in ESWL with increase in size of a calculus.

The routine use of stents after ureteroscopy is somewhat debatable. Weinberg et al[10] recommended keeping a ureteric catheter for 24 to 48 hours after the procedure to prevent colic and to allow minor mucosal perforations to heal. Others have recommended the use of a stent to prevent long term complications and to decrease postoperative morbidity[11]. We have routinely placed stents in all ureteroscopy patients as some ureteric oedema causing upper tract dilatation and dysfunction is expected. Ureteric catheters were placed for 24 to 48 hours in all patients. JJ stents for approximately 3 weeks were kept in patients with impacted calculi, and in patients with prolonged duration of procedure or mucosal injuries.

It has been shown that JJ stents do not necessarily improve the results of ESWL.[12] The insertion of stents not only incurs an additional expense, but also is an invasive procedure associated with complications. We have reserved stents for patients who presented with ureteric colic not responding to conservative treatment.

The success is with regard to the total stone clearance. In our series, ureteroscopy succeeded in the first attempt in 152 (95%). Six patients needed a second session of ureteroscopy improving the success rate to 98.7%. In ESWL, a success rate of 60% was achieved after the first session, which increased to 90% in three sessions.

The reasons for failure in ureteroscopy group were minor ureteric perforation in one, submucosal dissection with false passage in two patients and failure of adequate dilation of ureteric orifice in three patients. Repeat procedure after four weeks succeeded in all these patients. In ESWL group, 12 patients (10%) failed to fragment or evacuate their calculi. The failure in ESWL group was probably related to the stone composition.

Ureteroscopy failed to remove calculus in two patients as the stone migrated up. These were treated with ESWL. Ureteroscopy is an invasive procedure and complications are known in it. Huffman et al[13] described one ureteric reimplantation and eight pyelonephritis and mucosal tears, while Thomas[14] has reported two cases of partial ureteric avulsion and nine mucosal tears in his series. Puppo et al[15] has described a case of ureteric reimplantation for ureteric avulsion that happened in an attempt to overcome a ureteric stenosis.

None of the patients in ESWL group had any major complications although minor complications like pain and fever were observed in nine patients.

  ::   Conclusion Top

In this study, ureteroscopy is found to have marginally higher success rate compared to ESWL. However, ureteroscopy is more invasive. In addition, it has a potential for complications that can be serious. Ureteroscopy needs hospital stay and anaesthesia while ESWL can be done on outpatient basis thereby reducing inconvenience due to hospital admission. We suggest ESWL should be offered as a primary mode of treatment in patients with small and non obstructive lower ureteric calculi, as it is minimally invasive and safe. Ureteroscopy can be offered to patients who demand immediate relief and cannot be kept on follow up of those who fail treatment by ESWL.

 :: References Top

1. Perez-Castro Ellendt E, Martinez – Peneiro JA. Transurethral ureteroscopy A current urological procedure. Arch Esp Urol 1980; 33:445-460.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.El-Faqih SR, Husain I, Ekman PE, Sharma ND, Chakrabarty A, Talic R. Primary choice of intervention for distal ureteric stones: Ureteroscopy or ESWL? Br J Urol 1988; 62:13-18.   Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Riehle RA Jr. Endoscopy for ureteral stones in the age of ESWL. Semin Urol 1989; 7:43-53.   Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Chan PS, Fenn J. Transurethral Ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy and retrieval of ureteral calculi under local anaesthesia and sedation Br J Urol 1990; 65:141-143.  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Hosking DH, Bard RJ. Ureteroscopy with intravenous sedation for treatment of lower ureteric calculi: a safe and effective alternative to shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1996; 156:899-902.  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Monk TG, Bource B, White PF, Meretyk S, Clayman RV. Comparison of intravenous sedative analgesic techniques for outpatient immersion lithotripsy. Anesth Analg 1991; 72:616-621.  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Pettersson B, Tiselius HG, Andersson A, Eriksson I. Evaluation of extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy without anaesthesia using a Dornier HM3 Lithotriptor without technical modification. J Urol 1989; 142:1189-1192.  Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Leblanc B, Paquin JM. Ureteroscopy versus in situ ESWL in treatment of calculi of the distal ureter. Prog Urol 1996; 6:535-538.  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Park H, Park M, Park T. Two year experience with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy Vs ureteroscopic manipulation. J Endourol 1998; 12:501-504.  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Weinberg JJ, Snyder JA, Smith AD. Mechanical extraction of stones with rigid URS. Urol Clin North Am 1988; 15:339-346.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Morse R, Resnick M. Ureteral calculi: Natural history and treatment in an era of advanced technology. J Urol 1991; 145:263-265.  Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Mobley TB, Myers DA, Grine WB, Jenkins JM, Jordan WR. Low energy lithotripsy with Lithostar: Treatment results with 19,962 renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol 1993; 149:1419-1424.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.13. Huffman JL, Bagley DH, Lyon ES. Extending cystoscopic techniques into the ureter and renal pelvis experience with ureteroscopy and pyeloscopy. JAMA 1983; 250:2002-2005.  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Thomas R, Macaluso JN, Vandenberg T, Salvatore FT. An innovative approach to management of lower third ureteral calculi. J Urol 1993, 149:1427-1430.  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Puppo P, Ricciotti G, Bozzo W, Introini C. Primary endoscopic treatment of ureteral calculi. A review of 378 cases. Eur Urol 1999; 36:48-52.   Back to cited text no. 15    


[Table - 1], [Table - 2]

This article has been cited by
1 Does stone dimension affect the effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones?
Tugcu V, Tasci AI, Ozbek E, et al.
2 Extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi
Nabi G, Downey P, Keeley F, et al.
3 Management of ureteral calculi
Gerber GS
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY. 2004; 18 (5): 415-417


Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article
Online since 12th February '04
© 2004 - Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
Official Publication of the Staff Society of the Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow