RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Primary ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy is the treatment of choice for distal ureteral stones. However, in cases of proximal ureteral stones, some urologists recommend the preliminary insertion of a ureteral stent and deferred ureteroscopy. We aimed to evaluate the necessity of preliminary ureteral stent insertion in the management of proximal ureteral stones by comparing the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing primary ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for proximal vs. distal ureteral stones. METHODS: Medical records of patients who underwent ureteroscopy between 2016 and 2017 in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Data collected included demographic data, stone size, renal function, intra- and post-operative complications, and stone-free rate (SFR). Patients were divided into two groups: proximal ureteral stones and distal ureteral stones. RESULTS: The cohort included 241 patients who underwent ureteroscopy. Among them, 106 had a proximal ureteral stone. The median age was 51 (IQR 41-65) years. Patients who underwent ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral stones were significantly older (p = 0.007). The median stone's maximal diameter was 7 (5-10) mm. The complication rate and stone-free rate (SFR) were similar in both groups (p = 0.657 and p = 1, respectively). The prevalence of post-procedural ureteral stent insertion was higher among patients who underwent ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral stones: 92.5% vs. 79.3% (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Our study concludes that primary ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones is a valid and feasible treatment with a similar surgical outcome compared to distal ureteral stones. Preliminary ureteral stent insertion seems to be unnecessary.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this article was to investigate quality and cost benefits of managing urolithiasis by primary ureteroscopic procedures (P-URS) during index admission to hospital. With the rise in prevalence of urolithiasis, the focus has shifted to manage these patients during their first admission rather than using temporary measures like emergency stenting (ES) or nephrostomies which are followed by deferred ureteroscopic procedures (D-URS). We compared results of P-URS, D-URS and ES procedures in terms of quality and cost benefits. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data was collected retrospectively for all P-URS, D-URS and ES procedures performed during year 2019. A total of 85 patients underwent ES while as 138 patients underwent elective URS (26 had P-URS and 112 had D-URS). The quality assessment was based in relation to patient factors including- number of procedures per patient, number of days spent at hospital, number of days off work. Cost analysis included theatre and hospital stay expenses, loss of working days. RESULTS: This study revealed that the average hospital stay of patients on index admission who had a ES was 1.35 days (Total 3.85) and who had P-URS was 1.78 days (Total 2.78). Overall, additional expenditure in patients who did not undergo primary URS was in the range of 1800-2000 (excluding loss of work for patients, who needed to return for multiple procedures). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude approach of P-URS and management of stones in index admission is very effective in both improving quality of patients as well as bringing down cost expenditure effectively.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Primary ureteroscopy (P-URS) has been shown to be as safe and as efficacious as preoperative stent insertion followed by a delayed ureteroscopy (D-URS). However, studies are of limited patient cohort. METHODS: A prospective study comparing P-URS and laser fragmentation for ureteric stones to those who received a stent insertion followed by D-URS and stone fragmentation. RESULTS: A total of 367 consecutive patients were included. P-URS was conducted on 235 patients and D-URS on 132 patients. There was no overall difference between patient or stone demographics between the 2 groups, although there were more proximal ureteric and pelvi-ureteric junction stones in the preoperative stent group. The mean operative times were comparable with a stone free rate of 97 and 94% in the preoperative stent and no-stent groups, respectively. The overall complication rates were comparable. CONCLUSION: The current study provides evidence for the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of P-URS for ureteric calculi in a publicly funded healthcare setting with results comparable to those patients with a preoperative stent and delayed procedure. Therefore, cumulatively, P-URS could lead to less hospitalization, length of stay, stent-related morbidity, and ultimately will be more cost-effective.