Comparative evaluation of retrograde intrarenal surgery, antegrade ureterorenoscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm.

introductionThe aim of this article was to compare retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), antegrade ureterorenoscopy (URS), and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) for impacted proximal ureter stones larger than 1.5 cm in terms of operative data, success, complications, auxiliary treatment rates, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. MATERIAL AND

methodsMedical records of patients undergoing RIRS, antegrade URS, or LU were retrospectively reviewed. After exclusion criteria, 122 patients were included in advanced analyses. Patients were divided into 3 groups as RIRS (n = 43), antegrade URS (n = 38) and LU (n = 41).

resultsOperation time was shortest in the antegrade URS and hospitalization time was shortest in the RIRS group (p <0.001 and p <0.001, respectively). VAS scores were lowest in the RIRS group and highest in the LU group (p <0.001). Success (complete stone clearance) rates were 83.7%, 97.4%, and 97.5% in the RIRS, antegrade URS, and LU groups, respectively (p <0.001). Auxiliary treatment rates in the RIRS, antegrade URS, and LU groups were 19.1%, 2.6%, and 4.7%, respectively (p <0.001). Although there was no significant difference in terms of general complication rates, grade II complication rate (blood transfusion) was significantly higher in the antegrade URS group and grade IVb complication rate (urosepsis) was higher in the RIRS group according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification system (p = 0.007 and p = 0.02, respectively).

conclusionsAntegrade URS or LU are more logical options than RIRS for the treatment of large impacted proximal ureter stones. Between antegrade URS or LU, antegrade URS seems to be a more reasonable option due to its less invasive nature.