title: Retrograde versus Antegrade Approach for the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones.
abstract: Objective. To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of retrograde versus antegrade ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones.Patients and Methods. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients with proximal ureteral stones >15 mm, treated in our institution from January 2011 to January 2016. Intraoperative parameters, postoperative outcomes, and complications were recorded and compared between the two techniques.Results. Our analysis included 57 patients. Thirty-four patients (59.6%) underwent retrograde and 23 patients (40.4%) underwent antegrade ureteroscopy. There was no significant difference in patients' demographics and stone characteristics between the groups. Stone-free rate was significantly higher (p= 0.033) in the antegrade group (100%) compared to retrograde one (82.4%). Fluoroscopy time, procedure duration, and length of hospitalization were significantly (p< 0.001) lower in retrograde approach. On the other hand, the need for postoperative stenting was significantly lower in the antegrade group (p< 0.001). No difference was found between the groups (p= 0.745) regarding postoperative complications.Conclusions. Antegrade ureteroscopy is an efficient and safe option for the management of large proximal ureteral stones. It may achieve high stone-free rates compared to retrograde ureteroscopy with the drawback of longer operative time, fluoroscopy time, and length of hospitalization.
authors.affiliation: Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel.
authors.forename: Stavros
authors.identifier: 0000-0002-3486-0880
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sfoungaristos
authors.affiliation: G. Gennimatas Hospital, 1st Department of Urology, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece.
authors.forename: Ioannis
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Mykoniatis
authors.affiliation: Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel.
authors.forename: Ayman
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Isid
authors.affiliation: Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel.
authors.forename: Ofer N
authors.initials: ON
authors.lastname: Gofrit
authors.affiliation: Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel.
authors.forename: Shilo
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Rosenberg
authors.affiliation: Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel.
authors.forename: Guy
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Hidas
authors.affiliation: Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel.
authors.forename: Ezekiel H
authors.initials: EH
authors.lastname: Landau
authors.affiliation: Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel.
authors.forename: Dov
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Pode
authors.affiliation: Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel.
authors.forename: Mordechai
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Duvdevani
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008096:Lithotripsy / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D014513:Ureter / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery; D014515:Ureteral Diseases / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D018666:Ureteroscopy / Q000379:methods*; D014545:Urinary Calculi / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*