title: Emergency versus elective ureteroscopic treatment of ureteral stones.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  This retrospective study investigates the role of the emergency ureteroscopic (URS) approach in the definitive treatment of ureteric stones.
  
  
  METHODS
  We reviewed all patients admitted for ureteric stones from May 2003 to December 2010. Those who underwent URS stone treatment were selected and stratified into emergency (EMG) and elective groups (ELG). Emergency URS is defined as URS being performed within 24 hours of admission to the emergency room. The main indication for emergency treatment was refractory ureteric colic in spite of narcotic analgesia. Both groups were statistically compared in terms of their patient-, stone- and outcome-related variables. The overall success rate was defined by the clearance of the stone and/or presence of residual fragments (<3 mm) at the end of 4-week follow-up period.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In total, 903 patients were suitable for analysis with 244 and 659 patients in the EMG and ELG, respectively. Age, sex and comorbidities were comparable in both groups. Average ages were 43.4 ± 15.31 and 45.6 ± 13.24 years among EMG and ELG, respectively. Stones had an average size of 0.92 ± 0.49 (in the EMG group) and 0.96 ± 0.53 cm (in the ELG group). We found that 61.1% and 65.7% of stones were distally located in the EMG and ELG, respectively. EMG had a longer operative time (69 ± 21.03 vs. 57 ± 13.45 minutes) with comparable average hospital stays (1.9 days). Intra-operative double-J stents or ureteric catheter insertion was noted in 72.5 and 67.7% of EMG and ELG, respectively. The overall complication rates were reported in 13.1% in EMG and 14.4% in ELG. A higher rate of ureteric injuries (early and late) was documented in the EMG group (7% vs. 5.6%). Most of these injuries were minor and manageable without additional procedure and/or general anesthesia. Success was achieved in 90.6% and 91.8% of the EMG and ELG groups, respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  With recent advances in technology, the growing trend toward one-stage definitive treatment, patient acceptability and rising concerns over financial aspects, emergency URS treatment of ureteric stones is evolving as a standard initial management option.
authors.affiliation: King Abdullah University Hospital, Department of Surgery and Urology, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Irbid, Jordan.
authors.forename: Yousef S
authors.initials: YS
authors.lastname: Matani
authors.forename: Mohammed A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Al-Ghazo
authors.forename: Rami S
authors.initials: RS
authors.lastname: Al-Azab
authors.forename: Osamah Bani
authors.initials: OB
authors.lastname: Hani
authors.forename: Ibrahim F
authors.initials: IF
authors.lastname: Ghalayini
authors.forename: Ibrahim Bani
authors.initials: IB
authors.lastname: Hani
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2004 Feb 12;350(7):684-93
references.pmid: 14960744
references.citation: BJU Int. 2008 Sep;102(8):1010-7
references.pmid: 18485033
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 Apr;61(4):764-72
references.pmid: 22266271
references.citation: Urol Res. 2011 Dec;39(6):497-501
references.pmid: 21499919
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2007 Oct;52(4):1223-7
references.pmid: 17321666
references.citation: Korean J Urol. 2012 Sep;53(9):632-5
references.pmid: 23061001
references.citation: J Endourol. 2011 Jul;25(7):1137-41
references.pmid: 21682597
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2007 Dec;52(6):1610-31
references.pmid: 18074433
references.citation: Urol Clin North Am. 2004 Feb;31(1):157-71
references.pmid: 15040412
references.citation: J Urol. 2002 May;167(5):1972-6
references.pmid: 11956420
references.citation: Urology. 2001 Sep;58(3):351-6
references.pmid: 11549478
references.citation: Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010 Jul;92(5):368-72
references.pmid: 20626969
references.citation: Chin Med J (Engl). 2009 Apr 5;122(7):798-801
references.pmid: 19493392
references.citation: Urology. 2007 Jan;69(1):27-31; discussion 31-3
references.pmid: 17270606
references.citation: J Urol. 2002 May;167(5):1977-80
references.pmid: 11956421
references.citation: J Urol. 2001 Aug;166(2):538-40
references.pmid: 11458062
references.citation: J Urol. 2004 Nov;172(5 Pt 1):1899-902
references.pmid: 15540749
references.citation: J Endourol. 2009 Feb;23(2):253-7
references.pmid: 19187015
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2007 Oct;52(4):1264-5; author reply 1265-6
references.pmid: 17467159
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 Oct;178(4 Pt 1):1157-63
references.pmid: 17698126
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD006029
references.pmid: 17253576
references.citation: J Urol. 2002 Jan;167(1):31-4
references.pmid: 11743269
references.citation: BJU Int. 2006 Dec;98(6):1283-8
references.pmid: 17125486
references.citation: Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187-96
references.pmid: 19638912
references.citation: J Endourol. 2010 Nov;24(11):1721-4
references.pmid: 20958134
references.citation: Urology. 2011 Sep;78(3):516-20
references.pmid: 21601257
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2004 Jun;45(6):714-21
references.pmid: 15149742
references.citation: J Endourol. 2003 Dec;17(10):871-4
references.pmid: 14744352