Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ureteroscopy from the recent past to the near future

  • Invited Review
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stone surgery is one of oldest surgical practices undertaken by man. Hippocrates refused to let his followers “cut for the stone” and it was only in February 1980, when the first human trial of shock wave therapy on a renal stone was performed with success that a new era in minimally invasive treatment (surgery) for stones was opened up and this condemnation was finally resolved in the Hippocratic Oath. Endoscopy, using natural orifices, supported by anaesthesia, incremented by technology and with access to all points along the urinary tract, began by competing with ESWL, but is now the treatment of choice in most cases. As far as we know humans have always had stones. First, lithiasis was endemic bladder stones in children, now it is renal in general. Added to this a number of well-known risk factors, a rapid increase in obesity in the population, as well as bariatric surgery for its treatment, are causing an increase in the prevalence and recurrence of lithiasis everywhere. A short history of the advances made with the introduction and development of the ureteroscope, along with auxiliary devices, will show why this is the preferred technique at the moment for treating lithiasis in general and for treating stones in pregnant women, children and the obese in particular. Being a minimally invasive surgery, with a low morbidity and a very high efficiency and stonefree rate, has become established as a clear future technique for both adults and children. This development is not only due to technological advancements, but also to the routine use of the Holmium: YAG LASER for intracorporeal lithotripsy, capable of destroying any stone regardless of its composition or location, surpassing the ability of any other lithotripter. It is also due to the development of devices that allow access to the ureter and all parts of the kidney, as well as auxiliary aids to assist in the handling of stones during treatment. New LASERs, robotic control of the fdURS and digital imaging, as well as disposable devices, have had and, indeed, continue to have a unique impact on future development in this field. However, success will continue to depend on the careful choice of fURS, energy source and ancillary instruments obtained by the urologist during both real life and virtual training in human simulators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Saigal CS, Joyce G, Timilsina AR (2005) Direct and indirect costs of nephrolithiasis in an employed population: opportunity for disease management? Kidney Int 68:1808–1814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Turney BW, Reynard JM, Noble JG, Keoghane SR (2012) Trends in urological stone disease. BJU Int 109:1082–1087

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zaninotto P, Head J, Stamatakis E, Wardle H, Mindell J (2009) Trends in obesity among adults in England from 1993 to 2004 by age and social class and projections of prevalence to 2012. J Epidemiol Commun Health 63:140–146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Taylor EN, Stampfer MJ, Curhan GC (2005) Obesity, weight gain and the risk of kidney stones. JAMA 293:455–462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Reis Santos JM, Alberto T (2011) Epidemiology of pediatric urolithiasis. In: Rao PN et al (eds) Urinary tract stone disease, vol 35. Springer, London, pp 409–420

    Google Scholar 

  6. Smith AD, Preminger G, Badlani G, Kavoussi L (2012) Smith’s; textbook of endourology, 3rd edn. Wiley, USA, pp 365–387

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Tiselius HG (2008) How efficient is extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with modern lithotripters for removal of ureteral stones? J Endourol 22:249–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wright AE, Rukin NJ, Soman BK (2014) Ureteroscopy and stones: current status and future expectations. World J Nephrol 3(4):243–248

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Pearle MS, Calhoun EA, Curhan GC (2005) Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis. J Urol 173:848–857

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee MC, Bariol SV (2011) Evolution of stone management in Australia. BJU Int 108(Suppl 2):29–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Murphy LJT (1972) History of Urology. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield

    Google Scholar 

  12. Young HH, McKay RW (1929) Congenital valvular obstruction of the posterior urethra. Surg Gynecol Obstet 48:509–535

    Google Scholar 

  13. Somani BK, Aboumarzouk O, Srivastava A, Traxer O (2013) Flexible ureterorenoscopy: tips and tricks. Urol Ann 5:1–6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dretler SP, Cho G (1989) Semirigid ureteroscopy: a new genre. J Urol 141:1314–1316

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ferraro RF, Abraham VE, Cohen TD et al (1999) A new generation of semirigid fiberoptic ureteroscopes. J Endourol 13:35–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hirschowitz BI, Peters CW, Curtis LE (1957) Preliminary reports on a long fiberscope for examination of the stomach and duodenum. Univ Mich Med Bull 23:178–180

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC (2003) Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int 63:1817–1823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Beiko DT, Denstedt JD (2007) Advances in ureterorenoscopy. Urol Clin North Am 34:397–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Haleblian GE, Springhart WP, Maloney ME et al (2005) Digital video ureteroscope: a new paradigm in ureteroscopy. J Endourol 19:a80

    Google Scholar 

  20. Traxer O, Dubosq F, Jamali K et al (2006) New-generation flexible ureterorenoscopes are more durable than previous ones. Urology 68:276–279 (discussion 280–1)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Khanna R, Monga M (2011). Instrumentation in endourology. Ther Adv Urol 3:119–126

  22. Borofsky MS, Shah O (2013) Advances in ureteroscopy. Urol Clin North Am 40:67–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dickstein RJ, Kreshover JE, Babayan RK et al (2013) Is a safety wire necessary during routine flexible ureteroscopy? J Endourol 24:1589–1592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Eandi JA, Hu B, Low RK (2008) Evaluation of the impact and need for use of a safety guidewire during ureteroscopy. J Endourol 22:1653–1658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Weiland D, Canales BK, Monga M (2006) Medical devices used for ureteroscopy for renal calculi. Expert Rev Med Devices 3:73–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ng YH, Somani BK, Dennison A et al (2010) Irrigant flow and intrarenal pressure during flexible ureteroscopy: the effect of different access sheaths, working channel instruments, and hydrostatic pressure. J Endourol 24:1915–1920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R et al (2004) Prospective randomized comparison of 2 ureteral access sheaths during flexible retrograde ureteroscopy. J Urol 172:572–573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pedro RN, Hendlin K, Durfee WK et al (2007) Physical characteristics of next-generation ureteral access sheaths: buckling and kinking. Urology 70:440–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Eisner BH, Dretler SP (2009) Use of the Stone Cone for prevention of calculus retropulsion during holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy: case series and review of the literature. Urol Int 82:356–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tracy CR, McLeroy S, Best SL, Gnade BE, Pearle MS, Cadeddu JA (2010) Rendering stone fragments paramagnetic with iron-oxide microparticles improves the efficiency and effectiveness of endoscopic stone fragment retrievel. Urology 76:1266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Magheli A, Semins MJ, Allaf ME et al (2012) Critical analysis of the miniaturized stone basket: effect on deflection and flow rate. J Endourol 26:275–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Blew BD, Dagnone AJ, Fazio LM et al (2007) Practical comparison of four nitinol stone baskets. J Endourol 21:655–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Korman E, Hendlin K, Monga M (2011) Small-diameter nitinol stone baskets: radial dilation force and dynamics of opening. J Endourol 25:1537–1540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Seitz C (2014) Guidelines on urolithiasis. EAU. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/22Urolithiasis LR.pdf

  35. Bansal H, Swain S, Sharma GK, Mathanya M, Trivedi S, Dwivedi US, Singh PB (2011) Polyscope: a new era in flexible ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol 25:317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Walther S, Schlenker B, Tilki D, Hocaoglu Y, Sroka R, Stief CG, Reich O (2010) The polyscope: a modular design, semidisposable flexible ureterorenoscope system. J Endourol 24:1061

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Perbet S, Blanquet M, Mourgues C, Delmas J, Bertran S, Longère B, Boïko-Alaux V, Chennell P, Bazin JE, Constantin JM (2017) Cost analysis of single-use (Ambu® aScope™) and reusable bronchoscopes in the ICU. Ann Intensive Care 7(1):3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, Doizi S, Giusti G, Trazer O (2016) Comparison of new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposable fiber optic and digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model. J Endourol 30(6):655–659

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Uroclínica - Centro Clinico de Urologia, Campo Grande 30 1B, 1700-093, Lisboa, Portugal

    José Manuel Reis Santos

Authors
  1. José Manuel Reis Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Manuel Reis Santos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reis Santos, J.M. Ureteroscopy from the recent past to the near future. Urolithiasis 46, 31–37 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1016-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1016-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation