title: Comparison of Flexible Ureterorenoscopy and Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy Methods for Proximal Ureteric Stones Greater Than 10 mm.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To examine the outcomes and to compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and flexible URS in patients with proximal ureteral stones greater than 10 mm in diameter.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 150 patients who were performed laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and flexible URS because of uretral stones in our urology clinic between January 2010 and June 2015, were analyzed retrospectively. We constituted two groups; 70 patients who were performed laparoscopic ureterolithotomy were included in group I while flexible URS-performed 80 patients in group II. Success rates and complications of the group I and II were compared.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Success rates were 95.7% and 90% in group I and II respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of "success-rates". No statistically and clinically significant complications occurred in both groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and flexible URS methods are effective and reliable with proper indications in treatment of proximal ureteral stones. However, when considered short operational and hospitalization times and the management of the situations that require secondary interventions, we suggest that flexible URS is a minimally invasive method and it may be the first choice in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, 29 Mayis State Hospital, Ankara 06450, Turkey.
authors.forename: Idris Kivanc
authors.initials: IK
authors.lastname: Cavildak
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Diskapi Training and Research Hospital, Ankara 06110, Turkey. nalbant60@yahoo.com.
authors.forename: Ismail
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Nalbant
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Diskapi Training and Research Hospital, Ankara 06110, Turkey.
authors.forename: Can
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Tuygun
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Diskapi Training and Research Hospital, Ankara 06110, Turkey.
authors.forename: Ufuk
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Ozturk
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Diskapi Training and Research Hospital, Ankara 06110, Turkey.
authors.forename: Hasan Nedim
authors.initials: HN
authors.lastname: Goksel Goktug
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Special Memorial Hospital, Ankara 06450, Turkey.
authors.forename: Hasan
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Bakirtas
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Medical Faculty, Bozok University, Yozgat 66000, Turkey.
authors.forename: Muhammed Abdurrahim
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Imamoglu
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D008096:Lithotripsy / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014513:Ureter / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D014514:Ureteral Calculi / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000628:therapy*; D020709:Ureteroscopes; D018666:Ureteroscopy / Q000295:instrumentation*; D055815:Young Adult