Indian Journal of Urology Users online:1063  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2008  |  Volume : 24  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 461-466
 

Emergency management of ureteral stones: Recent advances


1 Department of Urology, Santo Antonio General Hospital, Oporto, Portugal
2 Urology Clinic, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy

Correspondence Address:
Luis Osorio
Dept of Urology, Santo Antonio General Hospital - Porto
Portugal
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.44248

Rights and Permissions

 
   Abstract 

Most ureteral stones can be observed with reasonable expectation of uneventful stone passage. When an active ureteral stone treatment is warranted, the best procedure to choose is dependent on several factors, besides stone size and location, including operators' experience, patients' preference, available equipment and related costs. Placement of double-J stent or nephrostomy tube represents the classical procedures performed in a renal colic due to acute ureteral obstruction when the conservative drug therapy does not resolve the symptoms. These maneuvers are usually followed by ureteroscopy or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, which currently represent the mainstay of treatment for ureteral stones. In this review paper a literature search was performed to identify reports dealing with emergency management of renal colic due to ureteral stones. The main aspects related to this debated issue are analyzed and the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment option are carefully discussed.


Keywords: Emergency, management, ureteric colic, ureteral stones


How to cite this article:
Osorio L, Lima E, Autorino R, Marcelo F. Emergency management of ureteral stones: Recent advances. Indian J Urol 2008;24:461-6

How to cite this URL:
Osorio L, Lima E, Autorino R, Marcelo F. Emergency management of ureteral stones: Recent advances. Indian J Urol [serial online] 2008 [cited 2019 Sep 16];24:461-6. Available from: http://www.indianjurol.com/text.asp?2008/24/4/461/44248



   Introduction Top


Acute renal colic is a common complaint observed in the emergency room. It is usually described as an acute flank pain radiating to the groin and it is often caused by ureteral stones. [1]

The clinical diagnosis should be supported by an appropriate imaging procedure. During recent years, unenhanced helical computed tomography has been introduced as a quick and contrast-free alternative to urography. An alternative and commonly applied method for evaluating patients with acute flank pain is a plain film of kidneys, ureter and bladder combined with ultrasonography. [2]

The first step in the treatment for acute renal colic caused by obstructing ureteral stones is medical relief of symptoms. When a drug therapy does not resolve the symptoms, the placement of a ureteral catheter or a nephrostomy tube has routinely represented the next step. [3] These easy maneuvers can offer a prompt relief from pain for the patient and they are usually followed by ureteroscopy (URS) or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), which currently represents the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic ureteral stones. [4]

In the last five years, these two treatment modalities have gained growing attention also in the emergency setting, applied rapidly after the onset of renal colic. Being able to result in both stone disintegration and relief from acute obstruction they represent an attractive option. [5]

The aim of the current report is to critically review the evidence on the emergency management of symptomatic ureteral stones.


   Materials and Methods Top


The present study is based on a structured literature review. A MEDLINE search was performed for publications in the English language using the key words "ureteral stones", "renal colic", "emergency management", "ureteroscopy", "extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy". Inclusion criteria were established before the search was initiated in order to select only relevant full-length papers that met the criteria of the analysis. Therefore, only studies addressing the management in an emergency setting of symptomatic ureteral stones were included and reviewed in detail. Furthermore, papers identified from the reference lists of selected papers were also considered.


   Conservative Management Top


Most ureteral stones can be observed with a reasonable expectation of uneventful stone passage and this strategy is generally less costly and less invasive than any other option, if successful. [6] Ureteral stones with a diameter less than 5 mm will pass in up to 68% of cases; however, for stones with a greater diameter the overall chances of spontaneous passage are lower. [4]

Overall, stone size and position, degree of impaction and of obstruction at the initial presentation are factors influencing the likelihood of and the time to spontaneous passage. [6] It has been recommended that stone passage should not exceed four to six weeks due to the risk of renal damage. [7] Conservative management is not appropriate in patients with risk factors for urosepsis, such as prolonged obstruction, persisting pain or associated infection. Moreover, there is an absolute indication for actively removing urinary stones is some sub-categories of patients, such as pilots or sailors.

An observational approach based only on the pharmacological control of pain, involving the administration of several agents by various routes, has been claimed since pain relief still remains as the most urgent step in patients with an acute stone episode. [8] Increasing fluid flow through the affected kidney may expedite stone passage even if interventions aiming to do so, such as intravenous high volumes or oral fluids and diuretics, have a controversial effect. [9]

Oral diclofenac in the prophylaxis of recurrent renal colic was evaluated in a double-blind placebo-controlled prospective study by Laerum et al. They demonstrated this treatment option to be effective in reducing colic and hospital admissions, even if stone passage rate was not affected. [10] Hydromorphone and other opiates without simultaneous administration of atropine should be avoided because of the increased risk of vomiting. [8]

Diclofenac belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These drugs have also been shown to interfere with the autoregulatory response to obstruction by decreasing renal blood flow. Although the renal function can be affected in patients with an already reduced function, this is not the case for normally functioning kidneys. [11]

Tramadol is more potent than previous oral preparations, with fewer opioid-type side-effects and less potential for dependence. [12] Ketorolac given intramuscularly is as effective as tramadol with an earlier analgesic effect. [13]


   Medical Expulsive Therapy Top


Medical expulsive therapy (MET) has recently emerged as an appealing option for the initial management of ureteral stones. [14]

Several pharmacological approaches have been proposed in recent years aiming to act on possible causes of stone retention. [7] Both α-antagonists and calcium channel blockers have been shown to inhibit the contraction of ureteral muscle responsible for ureteral spasms while allowing antegrade stone progression.[15],[16]

Even if the literature relating to the optimal conservative regime is sparse, some randomized studies have been reported assessing different drug combinations with encouraging outcomes in terms of expulsion rate, time to expulsion and pain control [17] [Table 1].

Nifedipine: This is a calcium channel blocker commonly used in the treatment of hypertension and angina. It acts as a suppressing mechanism of the fast component of ureteral contraction leaving the peristaltic rhythm unchanged. Its use in medical therapy for distal ureteral lithiasis has been tested in various studies, which have demonstrated its excellent efficacy for inducing stone expulsion and relieving pain, although the lack of validation by multicenter trials has not allowed it to diffuse the proposed treatment regimens. [7],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22] A pooled data analysis including 686 patients, mostly with distal ureteral stones > 5 mm, suggested a benefit in terms of stone explusion and time to stone expulsion when nifedipine is combined with standard therapy. Overall, adverse effects were observed in 15.2% of patients in these trials. [17]

Tamsulosin: The addition of α-antagonists to routine analgesia has been proposed to facilitate stone passage by inhibiting basal tone, peristaltic frequency and ureteral contractions through their action on the α-1 adrenergic receptors in ureteral smooth muscle. [23] Pooled data form 16 clinical trials including 1235 patients with distal ureteral stones between 3 and 18 mm suggest a benefit in stone expulsion. [24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33] The most commonly used agent was tamsulosin 0.4 mg taken daily for one month. However, in several trials terazosin 5-10 mg daily or doxazosin 4 mg daily were used with similar efficacy. Therefore the benefit is probably a class effect rather than an effect specific to tamsulosin. [17] Moreover, a two- to six-day average improvement in time to stone expulsion was observed in patients receiving an α-antagonist.[17] The mean time to stone explusion in these patients was less than 14 days, with an overall adverse effects rate of 4%. [17] Thus, according to the available evidence, an adrenergic α-antagonist is an effective adjunct to the standard analgesic therapy in the outpatient pharmacological treatment of uncomplicated distal ureteral stones.[32] It would be within the standard of care to add a short course (two to four weeks) of tamsulosin to analgesic therapy for patients discharged from the emergency department with appropriate urologic follow-up.


   Active Stone Removal Top


Active stone removal should be considered for stones with a diameter ≥ 7 mm and when adequate pain relief cannot be achieved, stone obstruction is associated with infection, there is a risk of urosepsis in single kidneys with obstruction or in cases of bilateral obstruction. [3]

When an active ureteral stone treatment is warranted, the best procedure to choose is dependent on several factors, besides stone size and location, including operators' experience, patient preference, available equipment and related costs. [4]

The standard first-line approach in the management of symptomatic ureteral stone is relief of obstruction by insertion of a nephrostomy tube or a double-J stent and fragmentation of the stone later. Insertion of a nephrostomy tube under local anesthesia is relatively less invasive and it is considered to be better if there is evidence of sepsis at the time of presentation. Nevertheless, its potential disadvantages are leakage, dislodgement of the tube and the need to manage the stoma. [33] Insertion of a double-J stent, apart from the complications such as ureteral perforations and failure to pass the stent in some cases, may increase the risk of urosepsis. Furthermore, the presence of a stent results in a reduction of the shock wave energy reaching the stone, and causes ureteral constriction and edema of the wall, both of which may reduce the chance of successful fragmentation or the passage of fragments after SWL. [34]

Emergency SWL: Shockwave lithotripsy is the most widely used method for managing renal and ureteral stones. However, treatment success rates depend on stone composition, size, and location, as well as instrument type and shock frequency. Since the introduction of SWL for the removal of stones, this procedure has been optimized, and new instruments have been developed to increase utility to urologists and to improve tolerability for the patient.

Shockwave lithotripsy as first-line therapeutic option, applied rapidly after the onset of renal colic, has deserved very limited attention so far. Since the pioneering paper by Doublet et al., [35] a few papers have been reported in the last years on the effective use of ESWL in emergency conditions, all with encouraging results even if mainly for proximal ureteral stones [36],[37],[38],[39],[40] [Table 2]. Seitz and colleagues showed that a gradual increase of the time after a first colic episode until ESWL treatment significantly correlated with delayed stone clearance. Subsequently the same group further highlighted the absence of significant impaction in proximal ureteral stones when treated within 24 h.

The main drawback in these reports remains the need for auxiliary procedures which can be explained by the use of new generation lithotripters. [4]

Emergency Ureteroscopy: Ureteroscopy represents a safe and minimally invasive procedure in the management of ureteral stones. Advancements in technology have made it a safe and highly successful procedure, reducing its complication rates. [41] Similar to ESWL, emergency URS can result in both stone disintegration and relief from colic pain. However, significant data on the ureteroscopic management of ureteral stones in an emergency setting are completely lacking. We recently published the first report focusing on ureteroscopic management of ureteral stones in emergency conditions. [42] The procedure was performed rapidly after the onset of renal colic due to ureteral stone (within 12 h from the admission to the emergency room). In our series the overall stone-free rate was 92,4%, which increased to 94,6% when only distal ureteral stones were considered. The overall complications rate was 4,2%, which decreased to 1,4% when only the smaller (less than 10 mm) stones were considered. These results resemble those from the current literature on elective URS. [43]


   Conclusion Top


The number of outpatient visits, emergency department encounters and total estimated annual expenditure for patients with claims for a diagnosis of urolithiasis have all doubled from 1994 to 2000. [44]

Recently, a number of reports have demonstrated that α-antagonists and calcium channel blockers can be used to augment spontaneous stone expulsion and improve time to expulsion of distal ureteral stones. Thus, active monitoring with the administration of MET currently represents a valid option for distal ureteral stones up to 10 mm that might have the chance for spontaneous passage. This conservative approach has also been shown to be a cost-effective strategy before embarking on surgical intervention. [45] At four to six weeks, for distal stones, irrespective of stone size, elective ESWL and URS are both acceptable treatment modalities, even if URS is mostly preferred. [3]

Emergency SWL can be easily offered for proximal symptomatic ureteral stones. In case of failure, further re-treatment is possible in elective setting, either with SWL or URS.

Currently, there seems to be a shift away from noninvasive SWL in favor of more invasive ureteroscopic options. The reason for this shift is the recent advances that have been made in ureteroscopic technology, intracorporeal lithotripsy probes and extraction devices. [41],[43] At the same time the trend in ESWL technology moved toward less expensive, more compact and mobile, but also less powerful machines. [46]

Although the need for rapid management of ureteral stones has been accepted, the best modality of treatment is still a matter of debate. The best procedure to choose is dependent on several factors, besides stone size and location, including operators' experience, patient preference, available equipment and related costs. [4]

Peschel et al., concluded that considerable differences between ESWL and URS can be recognized and that from the patient's viewpoint achieving a stone-free state as soon as possible is the ultimate goal. Therefore, most patients in their study were satisfied with URS but would not have been satisfied with ESWL, mainly because of the longer time to obtain stone-free status with the latter. In our experience, the patients had their problem solved in a short period and with no need of additional bothersome auxiliary procedures, such as been reported from other series in those undergoing emergency SWL. [42]

Patient satisfaction becomes increasingly important when choosing between competing modalities of similar efficacy, and so it is difficult to give priority to either of these procedures. Operator's experience, access to adequate equipment and specific circumstances are probably the most important determinants of which method will be most appropriate for each particular case [Figure 1].

 
   References Top

1.Teichman JM. Clinical practice: Acute renal colic from ureteral calculus. N Engl J Med 2004;350:684-93.   Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Dalla Palma L, Pozzi-Mucelli R, Stacul F. Present-day imaging of patients with renal colic. Eur Radiol 2001;11:4-17.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck AC, Gallucci M, et al. 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 2007;52:1610-31.  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Autorino R, Osorio L, Lima EA. Rapid extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi in colic versus noncolic patients. Eur Urol 2007;52:1264-5.  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Lotan Y, Gettman MT, Roehrborn CG, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. Management of ureteral calculi: A cost comparison and decision making analysis. J Urol 2002;167:1621-9.  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Miller OF, Kane CJ. Time to stone passage for observed ureteral calculi: A guide for patient education. J Urol 1999;162:688-91.  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Cooper JT, Stack GM, Cooper TP. Intensive medical management of ureteral calculi. Urology 2000;56:575-8.   Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Francesca F, Bader P, Echtle D, Giunta F, Williams J. EAU guidelines on pain management. Eur Urol 2003;44:383-9.   Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Worster A, Richards C. Fluids and diuretics for acute ureteric colic. Cochr Data Syst Rev 2005;3:CD004926.  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Laerum E, Ommundsen OE, Gronseth JE, Christiansen A, Fagertun HE. Oral diclofenac in the prophylatic treatment of recurrent renal colic: A double-blind comparison with placebo. Eur Urol 1995;28:108-11.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Shokeir AA, Abdulmaaboud M, Farage Y, Mutabagani H. Resistive index in renal colic: The effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. BJU Int 1999;84:249-51.  Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Eray O, Cete Y, Oktay C, Karsli B, Akηa S, Cete N, et al. Intravenous single dose tramadol versus meperidine for pain relief in renal colic. Eur J Anaes 2002;19:368-70.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Nicolαs Torralba JA, Rigabert Montiel M, Banon Perez V, Valdelvira Nadal P, Perez Albacete M. Intramuscular ketorolac compared to subcutaneous tramadol in the initial emergency treatment of renal colic. Arch Esp Urol 1999;52:435-7.   Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Hollingsworth JM, Rogers MA, Kaufman SR, Bradford TJ, Saint S, Wei JT, et al. Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: A meta-analysis. Lancet 2006;368:1171-9.  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Davenport K, Timoney AG, Keeley FX. A comparative in vitro study to determine the beneficial effect of calcium-channel and alpha1-adrenoceptor antagosim on human ureteric activity. BJU Int 2006;98:651-5.  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Troxel SA, Jones AW, Magliola L, Benson JS. Physiologic effect of nifedipine and tamsulosin on contractility of distal ureter. J Endourol 2006;20:565-8.  Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Singh A, Alter HJ, Littlepage A. A systematic review of medical therapy to facilitate passage of ureteral calculi. Ann Emerg Med 2007;50:552-67.  Back to cited text no. 17    
18.Borghi L, Meschi T, Amato F, Novarini A, Giannini A, Quarantelli C, et al. Nifedipine and methylprednisolone in facilitating ureteral stone passage: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Urol 1994;152:1095-100.  Back to cited text no. 18    
19.Porpiglia F, Destefanis P, Fiori C, Fontana D. Effectiveness of nifedipine and deflazacort in the management of distal ureteral stones. Urology 2000;56:579-83.  Back to cited text no. 19    
20.Saita A, Bonaccorsi A, Marchese F, Condorelli SV, Motta M. Our experience with nifedipine and prednisolone as expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. Urol Int 2004;72:43-5.  Back to cited text no. 20    
21.Porpiglia F, Ghignone G, Fiori C, Fontana D, Scarpa RM. Nifedipine versus tamsulosin for the management of lower ureteral stones. J Urol 2004;172:568-71.  Back to cited text no. 21    
22.Dellabella M, Milanese G, Muzzonigro G. Randomized trial of the efficacy of tamsulosin, nifedipine and phloroglucinol in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculi. J Urol 2005;174:167-72.  Back to cited text no. 22    
23.Sigala S, Dellabella M, Milanese G, Fornari S, Faccoli S, Palazzolo F, et al. Evidence for the presence of alpha1 adrenoceptor subtypes in the human ureter. Neurourol Urodyn 2005;24:142-8.  Back to cited text no. 23    
24.Cervenakov I, Fillo J, Mardiak J, Kopecnż M, Smirala J, Lepies P. Speedy elimination of ureterolithiasis in lower part of ureters with the alpha 1-blocker--Tamsulosin. Int Urol Nephrol 2002;34:25-9.  Back to cited text no. 24    
25.Dellabella M, Milanese G, Muzzonigro G. Efficacy of tamsulosin in the medical management of juxtavesical ureteral stones. J Urol 2003;170:2202-5.  Back to cited text no. 25    
26.Autorino R, De Sio M, Damiano R, Di Lorenzo G, Perdoną S, Russo A, et al. The use of tamsulosin in the medical treatment of ureteral calculi: Where do we stand? Urol Res 2005;33:460-4.  Back to cited text no. 26    
27.Resim S, Ekerbicer H, Ciftci A. Effect of tamsulosin on the number and intensity of ureteral colic in patients with lower ureteral calculus. Int J Urol 2005;12:615-20.  Back to cited text no. 27    
28.Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar MM, Tuglu D, Ferhat M, Basar H. The comparison and efficacy of 3 different alpha1-adrenergic lockers for distal ureteral stones. J Urol 2005;173:2010-2.  Back to cited text no. 28    
29.De Sio M, Autorino R, Di Lorenzo G, Damiano R, Giordano D, Cosentino L et al. Medical expulsive treatment of distal-ureteral stones using tamsulosin: A single-center experience. J Endourol 2006;20:12-6.  Back to cited text no. 29    
30.Porpiglia F, Vaccino D, Billia M, Renard J, Cracco C, Ghignone G, et al. Corticosteroids and tamsulosin in the medical expulsive therapy for symptomatic distal ureter stones: Single drug or association? Eur Urol 2006;50:339-44.  Back to cited text no. 30    
31.Sayed MA, Abolyosr A, Abdalla MA, El-Azab AS. Efficacy of tamsulosin in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculi. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2007;24:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 31    
32.Buehler G, Mills AM, Chen EH. Does the addition of tamsulosin to outpatient analgesic therapy enhance spontaneous stone passage in patients with uncomplicated distal ureteral stones? Ann Emerg Med 2007;50:564-8.  Back to cited text no. 32    
33.Joshi HB, Obadeyi OO, Rao PN. A comparative analysis of nephrostomy, JJ stent and urgent in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for obstructing ureteric stones. BJU Int 1999;84:264-9.   Back to cited text no. 33    
34.Preminger GM, Kettelhut MC, Elkins SL, Seger J, Fetner CD. Ureteral stenting during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: Help or hindrance. J Urol 1989;142:32-6.   Back to cited text no. 34    
35.Doublet JD, Tchala K, Tligui M, Ciofu C, Gattegno B, Thibault P. In situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for acute renal colic due to obstructing ureteral stones. Scan J Urol Nephrol 1997;31:137-9.  Back to cited text no. 35    
36.Tligui M, El Khadime MR, Tchala K, Haab F, Traxer O, Gattegno B, et al. Emergency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for obstructing ureteral stones. Eur Urol 2003;43:552-5.  Back to cited text no. 36    
37.Tombal B, Mawlawi H, Feyaerts A, Wese FX, Opsomer R, Van Cangh PJ. Prospective randomized evaluation of emergency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) on the short time outcome of symptomatic ureteral stones. Eur Urol 2005;47:885-9.  Back to cited text no. 37    
38.Kravchick S, Bunkin I, Stepnov E, Peled R, Agulansky L, Cytron S. Emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for acute renal colic caused by upper urinary tract stones. J Endourol 2005;19:1-4.   Back to cited text no. 38    
39.Seitz C, Fajkovic H, Remzi M, Waldert M, Ozsoy M, Kramer G, et al. Rapid extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment after a first coli episode correlates with accelerated ureteral stone clearance. Eur Urol 2006;49:1099-106.  Back to cited text no. 39    
40.Seitz C, Tanovic E, Kikic Z, Memarsadeghi M, Fajkovic H. Rapid extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for proximal reteral calculi in colic versus noncolic patients. Eur Urol 2007;52:1223-7.  Back to cited text no. 40    
41.Anagnostou T, Tolley D. Management of ureteric stones. Eur Urol 2004;45:714-21.   Back to cited text no. 41    
42.Osorio L, Lima E, Soares J, Autorino R, Versos R, Lhamas A, et al. Emergency ureteroscopic management of ureteral stones: Why not? Urol 2007;69:27-31.  Back to cited text no. 42    
43.Gettman MT, Segura JW. Management of ureteric stones: Issues and controversies. BJU Int 2005;95:85-93.  Back to cited text no. 43    
44.Pearle MS, Calhoun EA, Curhan GC, Urologic Diseases of America Project, Urologic disease in America project: Urolithiasis. J Urol 2005;173:848-57.  Back to cited text no. 44    
45.Bensalah K, Pearle M, Lotan Y. Cost-effectiveness of medical expulsive therapy using alpha-blockers for the treatment of distal ureteral stones. Eur Urol 2007 Sep 18 Epub ahead of print.  Back to cited text no. 45    
46.Rassweiler J, Tailly G, Chaussy C. Progress in lithotriptor technology. EAU Update Series 2005;3:17-36.  Back to cited text no. 46    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]

This article has been cited by
1 Factors predicting success of emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eESWL) in ureteric calculi—a single centre experience from the United Kingdom (UK)
A. Panah,S. Patel,A. Bourdoumis,S. Kachrilas,N. Buchholz,J. Masood
Urolithiasis. 2013; 41(5): 437
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Efficacy and Safety of Emergency Ureteroscopic Management of Ureteral Calculi
Jun Ho Youn,Sung Soo Kim,Ji Hyeong Yu,Luck Hee Sung,Choong Hee Noh,Jae Yong Chung
Korean Journal of Urology. 2012; 53(9): 632
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Efficacy and safety of emergency ureteroscopic management of ureteral calculi
Youn, J.H. and Kim, S.S. and Yu, J.H. and Sung, L.H. and Noh, C.H. and Chung, J.Y.
Korean Journal of Urology. 2012; 53(9): 632-635
[Pubmed]
4 Urgent ureteroscopy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 681 patients
Stefano C. M. Picozzi, Cristian Ricci, Maddalena Gaeta, Stefano Casellato, Robert Stubinski, Giorgio Bozzini, Gianna Pace, Alberto Macchi, Luca Carmignani
Urological Research. 2012;
[VIEW] | [DOI]
5 Emergency Ureteroscopic Removal of Ureteral Calculi After First Colic Attack: Is There Any Advantage?
Kemal Sarica, Orhan Tanriverdi, Mustafa Aydin, Hakan Koyuncu, Cengiz Miroglu
Urology. 2011;
[VIEW] | [DOI]
6 Reply
Orhan Tanriverdi, Kemal Sarica
Urology. 2011; 78(3): 521
[VIEW] | [DOI]
7 Emergency ureteroscopic lithotripsy in acute renal colic caused by ureteral calculi: a retrospective study
Mohammed A. Al-Ghazo, Ibrahim Fathi Ghalayini, Rami S. Al-Azab, Osamah Bani Hani, Ibrahim Bani-Hani, Mohammad AbuHarfil, Yazan Haddad
Urological Research. 2011;
[VIEW] | [DOI]
8 Medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones [Ɯreter taşlari{dotless
Atan, A. and Tuncel, A.
Turk Uroloji Dergisi. 2010; 36(3): 302-308
[Pubmed]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article

    

 
   Search
 
   Next article
   Previous article 
   Table of Contents
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (144 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
    Introduction
    Materials and Me...
    Conservative Man...
    Medical Expulsiv...
    Active Stone Removal
    Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed14942    
    Printed161    
    Emailed6    
    PDF Downloaded592    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 8    

Recommend this journal

HEALTHWARE INDIA