Search

PurposeTo analyze some of the factors that may be associated with a higher incidence of complications during management of ureteral stones by rigid ureteroscopy.Patients and MethodsWe reviewed all ureteroscopic interventions aimed at stone extraction andor fragmentation in our institution from 2001 through 2005. A total of 442 interventions were eligible for inclusion. Our focus was concentrated on (1) patient characteristics (age, gender, duration of symptoms, history of urinary schistosomiasis, and history of surgery involving the affected ureter), (2) stone characteristics (number, length, width, and level of the ureter affected), (3) the affected reno-ureteral unit (which side was affected, the kidney's ability to excrete contrast medium, and the status of the ureter proximal and distal to the stone), and finally (4) experience level of the surgeon in charge (junior vsenior). The occurrence of intraoperative adverse events was considered a dependent variable and was statistically related to each of the above factors as independent variables.ResultsIntraoperative adverse events were encountered in 121 interventions including stone migration in 54, minor mucosal injuries in 24, ureteral perforation in 12, ureteral avulsion in 2, and aborted procedure due to bleeding or edema in 29. Symptomatology present for more than 3 months, a negative history of schistosomiasis, a positive history of ureteral surgery, stones above the ischial spines, stones >5 mm in width, a dilated proximal ureter, kidneys that failed to excrete contrast medium, and involvement of a more junior urologist were factors that were associated with a statistically significantly higher incidence of intraoperative complications.ConclusionsRigid ureteroscopic stone manipulation remains a procedure that should be handled cautiously. Existence of any of the above risk factors should alert urologists, particularly at training centers, to adopt all possible precautionary measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]