Abstract:Purpose We conducted a prospective, randomized, comparative study to compare the clinical outcome between the Trendelenburg position ureteroscopic lithotripsy (tURSL) and the conventional position ureteroscopic lithotripsy (cURSL) for the management of single proximal ureteral stone. Methods From January 2012 to September 2013, consecutive patients with single proximal ureteral calculi less than 2 cm and planned for ureteroscopic lithotripsy at our institution were enrolled in this study. The eligible patients were randomized into cURSL group and tURSL group according to sequence of random numbers generated by computer. In tURSL group, patients were turned into a Trendelenburg lithotomy position with head down 30° while the conventional lithotomy position was applied in cURSL group. URSL was performed using a 6/7.5F semi-rigid ureteroscope with holmium laser. When retropulsion occurred, the stones fragments were followed by semi-rigid ureteroscope up to the renal collecting system. The Olympus P5 flexible ureteroscope was used if there was any suspicion of stone migration into lower calices or incomplete stone fragmentation by semi-rigid ureteroscope. Patients’ demographics between the two groups, perioperative course, clinical outcome and complication rates were compared. Data were analyzed using Chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test or Student’s t test. Binary logistic regression analysis was applied to estimate the effects of surgical position and stone size on stone migration. Results A total of 355 cases were finally analyzed in this study (176 in cURSL group and 179 in tURSL group). The mean operative time was significantly prolonged in cURSL group than in tURSL group, while the stone-free rate (SFR) at 4 weeks was significantly higher in tURSL group. A statistically significant difference was found in stone migration rate between the two groups (26.7 vs. 43.6 %, P = 0.001). In the stone migration subsetting, less stones fragments were found to migrate into lower calices in tURSL stone migration subgroup ( P = 0.000). Also, the flexible ureteroscope utilization as well as the operative time was significantly decreased in tURSL stone migration subgroup (25.5 vs. 72.3 %, P = 0.000), (44.96 ± 11.0 min vs. 59.17 ± 9.2 min, P = 0.000) with higher SFR after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) (96.2 vs. 74.5 %, P = 0.000). Conclusion The tURSL was safe and highly efficacious for the management of proximal ureteral calculus, especially in nonobese patient. Even with important stone migration risk, it rendered higher SFR and less operative time compared with cURSL. Moreover, less utilization of flexible ureteroscope and decreased deflection time in tURSL could potentially reduce the medical cost.

Comparison Between Retrograde and Antegrade Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy for the Management of Medium-Sized Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Randomized Prospective Study

Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy versus antegrade flexible ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones 1–2 cm, a prospective randomized multicenter study

Treatment of Large Impacted Proximal Ureteral Stones: Randomized Comparison of Percutaneous Antegrade Ureterolithotripsy Versus Retrograde Ureterolithotripsy.

Comparison of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, retrograde flexible ureteroscopy, and mini-percutaneous antegrade flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large (≥ 15 mm) impacted proximal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized trial

Comparative study between antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and reterograde intrarenal surgery in the management of impacted upper ureteric stones 1.5 cm or larger

Comparison of stone-free rate between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery

How Effective Is Retrograde Semirigid and Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Large Ureteral Stones Equal of or Greater than 15 mm? Results from a Single Center

Comparison of Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy with Ureteroscopic Lasertripsy for Management of Proximal Ureteral Stones

Retrograde, Antegrade, and Laparoscopic Approaches to the Management of Large Upper Ureteral Stones after Shockwave Lithotripsy Failure: A Four-Year Retrospective Study

Ureteroscopy vs laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteric stone: a randomised trial

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) in Medium Sized Renal Pelvic Stones

Ureteroscopic lithotripsy in Trendelenburg position for proximal ureteral calculi: a prospective, randomized, comparative study

Comparative study between retrograde intrarenal surgery and ultrasound- guided shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of 1 to 2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal stones

Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Micro-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Stones: A Meta-Analysis

Comparison between Retrograde Flexible Ureteroscopy and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Treatment of Renal Stones of 2-4 cm

Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal pelvic stone more than 2 centimeters: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Retrograde intrarenal surgery or percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteric calculi

Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in Treating 20-40 mm Renal Stones

RETROGRADE INTRARENAL LITHOTRIPSY USING DISPOSABLE FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPE

Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of renal stones greater than 2 cm

Comparison of Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for Treatment of Impacted Proximal Ureteral Stones Greater Than 15 Mm.