Objective: To evaluate the complications of ureterorenoscopy (URS) using the modified Clavien classification system for ureteral stones with different localizations. Patients and Methods: From February 2001 to January 2010, a total of 1,926 patients underwent URS for the treatment of ureteral stones with different localizations. The complications were evaluated according to the modified Clavien system. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify risk factors affecting the complication rates. Results: The patient cohort included 1,212 males and 714 females with a mean age of 47.8 ± 14.3 years (range 15-86). The success rate was 95.7%. The overall complication rate was 9.3%. Univariate analysis revealed that solitary kidney, stone burden, bilaterality, stone localization (proximal to the iliac crest) and stone impaction significantly affected the complication rates. Multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative shock wave lithotripsy treatment, stone impaction, multiplicity, proximal localization and stone burden were significant parameters affecting the occurrence of complications (relative risks of 6.5, 4.3, 3.3, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). Conclusions: URS is a safe and minimally invasive procedure with a high success rate and low-grade, self-limiting complications. Preoperative shock wave lithotripsy treatment, stone impaction, multiplicity, proximal localization and stone burden were independent risk factors for the development of complications.

Keywords:
Ureteral stone, Pneumatic lithotripsy, Ureteroscopy, Complications
1.
El-Nahas AR, El-Tabey NA, Eraky I, Shoma AM, El-Hefnawy AS, El-Assmy AM, et al: Semirigid ureteroscopy for ureteral stones: a multivariate analysis of unfavorable results. J Urol 2009;181:1158-1162.
2.
Harmon WJ, Sershon PD, Blute ML, Patterson DE, Segura JW: Ureteroscopy: current practice and long-term complications. J Urol 1997;157:28-32.
3.
Osorio L, Lima E, Soares J, Autorino R, Versos R, Lhamas A, Marcelo F: Emergency ureteroscopic management of ureteral stones: why not? Urology 2007;69:27-31; discussion 31-33.
4.
Sofer M, Watterson JD, Wollin TA, Nott L, Razvi H, Denstedt JD: Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi in 598 patients. J Urol 2002;167:31-34.
5.
Tunc L, Kupeli B, Senocak C, Alkibay T, Sözen S, Karaoglan U, Bozkirli I: Pneumatic lithotripsy for large ureteral stones: is it the first line treatment? Int Urol Nephrol 2007;39:759-764.
6.
Arıdogan IA, Zeren S, Bayazıt Y, Soyupak B, Doran S: Complications of pneumatic ureterolithotripsy in the early postoperative period. J Endourol 2005;19:50-53.
7.
Naqui SA, Khali M, Zafer MN, Rizui SA: Treatment of ureteric stones: comparison of laser and pneumatic lithotripsy. Br J Urol 1994;74:694-698.
8.
Graefen M: The modified Clavien system: a plea for a standardized reporting system for surgical complications. Eur Urol 2010;57:387-389.
9.
Zuazu JR, Hruza M, Rassweiler JJ, de la Rosette J: The Clavien classification system to optimize the documentation of PCNL morbidity. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2010;82:20-22.
10.
Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM: Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 1992;111:518-526.
11.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6,336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
12.
Mamoulakis C, Efthimiou I, Kazoulis S, Christoulakis I, Sofras F: The modified Clavien classification system: a standardized platform for reporting complications in transurethral resection of the prostate. World J Urol 2011;29:205-210.
13.
Morgan M, Smith N, Thomas K, Murphy DG: Is Clavien the new standard for reporting urological complications? BJU Int 2009;104:434-436.
14.
Guven S, Istanbulluoğlu O, Gul U, Ozturk A, Celik H, Aygün C, et al: Successful percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: multicenter study on current status of its use, efficacy and complications using Clavien classification. J Urol 2011;185:1419-1424.
15.
Strohmaier WL, Schubert G, Rosenkranx T, Weigl A: Comparison of ESWL and ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Eur Urol 1999;36:376-379.
16.
Marberger M, Hofbauer J, Turk C, Höbarth K, Albrecht W: Management of ureteric stones. Eur Urol 1994;25:265-272.
17.
Hollenbeck BK, Schuster TG, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS: Comparison of outcomes of ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi located above and below the pelvic brim. Urology 2001;58:351-355.
18.
Delvecchio FC, Kuo RL, Preminger GM: Clinical efficacy of combined lithoclast and lithovac stone removal during ureteroscopy. J Urol 2000;164:40-42.
19.
Singal RK, Denstedt JD: Contemporary management of ureteral stones. Urol Clin North Am 1997;24:59-70.
20.
Fuchs AM, Fuchs GJ: Retrograde intra-renal surgery for calculus disease: new minimally invasive treatment approach. J Endourol 1990;4:337-345.
21.
Cheung MC, Lee F, Yip SKH, Tam PC: Outpatient holmium laser lithotripsy using semirigid ureteroscope: is the treatment outcome affected by stone load? Eur Urol 2001;39:702-708.
22.
Parker BD, Frederick RW, Reilly TP, Lowry PS, Bird ET: Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. Urology 2004;64:1102-1106; discussion 1106.
23.
Schatloff O, Lindner U, Ramon J, Winkler HZ: Randomized trial of stone fragment active retrieval versus spontaneous passage during holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteral stones. J Urol 2010;183:1031-1036.
24.
Ozden E, Mercimek MN, Yakupoğlu YK, Ozkaya O, Sarikaya S: Modified Clavien system in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: assessment of complications in children. J Urol 2011;185:264-268.
25.
Daniels GF Jr, Garnett JE, Carter MF: Ureteroscopic results and complications: experience with 130 cases. J Urol 1988;139:710-713.
26.
Martin X, Ndoye A, Konan PG, Feitosa Tajra LC, Gelet A, Dawahra M, Dubernard JM: 998Hazards of lumbar ureteroscopy: apropos of 4 cases of avulsion of the ureter. Prog Urol 1998;8:358-362.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.