Ureteroscopy: Background and Current Controversies



(Images of surgical equipment featured in this article are for patient education only. They are not intended for promotional use or a reflection of personal preference. We accept no fees or other benefits from vendors or their agents.)

Evolution of Technique

The fascinating history of urology with its captivating depictions, texts and stories rivals any other field in medicine. In particular, the ancient past of lithotomy (treatment and removal of urinary stones) dates back to Mesopotamia (3200 BC)and descriptions and treatments for urinary stone disease have been identified from ancient cultures including Hindu, Greek, and Egyptian. The treatment of stones, which at the time most commonly occurred in the bladder, was very dangerous, often lethal.  As such, it led to the development of one of the first medical subspecialists, the lithotomist, who opened the urinary tract and removed stones directly. Recognition of this unique set of skills earned a distinction in the Hippocratic oath, still recited by graduating students: “I will not cut for the stone, but will leave this to be done by practitioners of this work…”

Today, “cutting for stone,” otherwise known as open stone surgery, has been replaced by alternative minimally invasive techniques. Critical to this change has been the introduction of the endoscope. Whereas early pioneers such as Howard Kelly (depicted above in the early 1900’s using a wax tipped catheter in the ureter to detect a ureteral stone) relied heavily on intuition, feel, and clinical suspicion, advances in endoscopy have made it possible to inspect all parts of the urinary tract directly.Screen Shot 2016-01-19 at 1.56.38 PM

The particular endoscope that has revolutionized our ability to treat kidney stones in a minimally invasive fashion is the ureteroscope. Incorporation of its use into urologic practice has led to the development of a unique subspecialty, endourology, that focuses on minimally invasive and endoscopic surgical treatments.

Modern Ureteroscopy

A ureteroscope, as its name implies, is an endoscope designed to visualize and work within the ureter. Other scopes commonly used by urologists and endourologists include the cystoscope (used in the bladder) and the nephroscope (used in the kidney).

Although such scopes now enable modern surgical stone treatment, they have only been routinely utilized for the past several decades. Minimally invasive kidney stone treatment began in the mid-1980’s with shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Ureteroscopy for treatment of ureteral stones was not performed routinely until then as well, and it was not until the late 1990’s and early 2000’s that ureteroscopes could routinely access and treat stones in the kidney. In the United States we often take such technologies and treatment options for granted, but open stone surgery is still practiced in many parts of the world where modern technology remains limited.

There are two types of ureteroscopes, rigid and flexible. Rigid ureteroscopes, as their name implies, are firm and preferred for treatment of stones lodged in the lower ureter which can usually be accessed in a straight path. When stones are located in the upper ureter and/or kidney, they often require Screen Shot 2016-01-19 at 2.09.57 PM
flexible ureteroscopes that accommodate to the shape of the ureter and renal collecting system (figure on right).  Though more difficult to maneuver, flexible scopes allow the urologist to inspect nearly the entirety of the inner kidney to find stones, treat them, and remove them using a variety of techniques. Innovation this area is brisk and modern digital ureteroscopes offer increasingly superior image quality, lighting and wide fields of view.

Fiberoptic vs. Digital URS

(Figure – Left ) Ureteroscopic image of the renal collecting system using older generation fiberoptic ureteroscope (left) and newer generation digital ureteroscope (right).  Note the superior image quality, increased light intensity and wider field of view.  Panels A and B feature small stones attached to a renal papilla.  Panels C and D feature the endoscopic appearance of Randall’s plaque.


Irrigation and Access Sheaths

In order visualize anything at all, fluid must run continuously through the scope and into the kidney to wash away blood, debris, and crystals that impair visualization. To accomplish this, the fluid (most commonly saline) is hung from a bag and run through tubing directly into the body of the scope where it comes out the tip and into the kidney.

This inflow is harmless, but excess filling of the kidney because of high pressure inflow or an inability of the fluid to freely exit around the scope can overstretch the kidney and cause fluid absorption, leakage, bleeding, and small tears within the kidney itself, a term we call extravasation.

To prevent this, many urologists use a device called a ureteral access sheath. This can be thought of as a temporary tunnel from the bladder to the kidney which allows any fluid that is irrigated into the kidney to quickly wash out around the scope, optimizing visualization and decreasing the likelihood of extravasation. The scope can be passed back and forth without rubbing against and potentially damaging the lining of the ureter, which is generally around the same small diameter as the scope itself. When used appropriately, temporary sheaths are safe and decrease postoperative infections and sepsis. While the majority of urologists routinely use them during ureteroscopy, debate does exist within the community as to whether or not they are required in every case.

Screen Shot 2016-01-20 at 11.41.49 PM(Figure on Left – Boston Scientific Navigator HD TM, Marlborough, MA)

The concern with routine use of a sheath is trauma and injury to the ureter when the sheath is passed. Larger diameter sheaths are preferable for procedures, but the ureter is quite narrow and often will not accommodate a large sheath and sometimes any sheath at all. In such cases, surgeons have several options.  If they deem a sheath necessary, they can place a temporary ureteral stent that lets the ureter passively dilate and facilitate sheath placement at a later time. Alternatively, they can dilate the ureter during the procedure using either balloon or serial dilators in order to get the sheath up.

Screen Shot 2016-01-29 at 10.07.22 AM

(The ureteral access sheath (white arrow) is passed under fluoroscopic guidance over a wire (black arrow) that is positioned from outside the body and extends through the ureter to the kidney.)

Because the ureter is delicate and easily torn and injured when overstretched, there is risk.  In a recent publication by Traxer et al. that describes 359 consecutive cases of ureteroscopy where a ureteral access sheath was used, nearly half (46.5%) of the patients had some degree of ureteral injury. Most injuries were superficial, but severe injuries were found in 13.3%. The main figure (below) from this paper often presented at society meetings, particularly by those who do not favor sheath use.

Screen Shot 2016-01-20 at 11.27.46 PM

While these images raise concerns, there is no evidence to date that when managed properly with placement of a temporary ureteral stent these injuries produce any long term consequence. For example, there is no published evidence of an association between ureteral access sheath use and ureteral stricture. Most studies have shown that intraoperative complication rates during flexible ureteroscopy are no different with or without an access sheath.

Alternatively, urologists have the option of performing ureteroscopy without using a sheath at all.  One advantage of this approach is that the ureteroscopes themselves are thinner than the sheaths and thus more likely to be able to be passed up the naturally thin ureter without trauma or need for dilation.  This approach does have limitations though including poorer visualization, higher potential for excess intrarenal pressure, and a limited ability to make multiple passes back and forth between the kidney and bladder to remove stones.

Lasers and Baskets

Many instruments, all are extremely thin, can be passed through the small working channel that runs from the back of the ureteroscope outside of the body, to the tip of the scope in the kidney. They are used to fragment and remove stones.

Stone retrieval baskets, pictured below, (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) are opened and closed by an assistant to ensnare stones and remove them from the kidney. They come in various shapes, sizes and configurations. When stones are roughly 2-4 mm the basket is able to remove them intact.  When stones are larger, they must be fragmented into smaller pieces in order to be removed or pass.

Screen Shot 2016-01-21 at 1.02.22 PM

The most commonly utilized method to fragment stones during ureteroscopy is laser lithotripsy.  Several lasers exist for the purpose but the most popular one by far is the Holmium laser. The Holmium laser can safely fragment any type of stone. The laser delivers short bursts of light energy through water that destroys the stone’s structure by creating a micro explosion of intense heat, pressure, and cavitation bubbles. Because the laser energy penetrates less than half of a millimeter deep it causes minimal damage to surrounding tissues.

Screen Shot 2016-01-21 at 12.59.51 PM

(Dornier Medtech, Friedrichshafen, Germany)

Ureteroscopic Stone Treatment Techniques

As ureteroscopic technology and familiarity with this approach to treat stones continues to grow, the relative number of stones being treated in this fashion has been growing rapidly as well. The latest estimates of surgical practice from the past decade show that ureteroscopy has replaced shock wave lithotripsy as the most commonly performed treatment of kidney stones, accounting for 54% of upper urinary tract stone procedures. Along with the widespread adoption of this procedure, two main techniques have evolved into practice, the optimal one of which remains unclear.

Active Extraction

Active extraction means to remove every piece of stone from the kidney so that at the end of the procedure there are no remaining stones and patients do not pass any stones postoperatively. Critics raise concerns that this technique requires a ureteral access sheath, an assistant to operate the basket, and potentially increases the operating time. A video description of this technique prepared for this article can be seen below.

[youtube id=”gz_VK6qn2Fw”]

Stone Dusting

Stone dusting is conceptually different from active extraction because the goal of the procedure is not to remove all stones directly but rather fragment them into minute pieces (dust) that can then be passed after the procedure, painlessly and without consequence.

Because his technique needs no access sheath, being performed with single pass of the ureteroscope, it benefits patients with narrow ureters.  The surgeon can dust with only a laser and avoid a basket with its cost of disposable equipment and need for a skilled assistant. Here is a video of the procedure prepared by Lumenis Ltd, Israel.

[youtube id=”ooj9d_f81MY”]

Which Technique is Best?

Urologists debate whether active extraction or dusting is the better treatment approach, and both sides have their staunch advocates. As is common, the intensity of debate reflects the paucity of studies that compare the two techniques.

Interim results from an ongoing study by the Endourology Disease Group for Excellence (EDGE) comparing dusting to active extraction (table) indicate that dusting is associated with a shorter operative time (40.5 vs. 59.8 min) despite being used to treat larger stones (113 mm2 vs 81mm2).

Screen Shot 2016-01-21 at 3.08.58 PM

On the other hand, a greater percentage of patients treated with a dusting had residual (leftover) stones after the procedure than those treated using active extraction (39.1% vs 11.1%).

These residual stones were not just dust; 44% of the stones were greater than 4 mm.

Despite the higher rate of residual fragments in the dusting group, only one patient in each arm suffered symptoms from a residual fragment at short term follow-up, raising the question of whether or not small residual stones are clinically significant.

But these clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRFs)’ may not be clinically insignificant.

In one recent study, the EDGE working group found that 44% of 232 patients who had ureteroscopic stone treatment and were found to have residual fragments experienced a “stone event” (defined as a composite of stone growth (at least 1 mm), stone passage, re-intervention or postoperative complications) at mean follow-up of nearly 17 months. Of these 29% required a surgical intervention.

The likelihood of stone events and reintervention were depended on the size of the residual fragment. Among patients with fragments greater than 4mm, reintervention was required 38% of the time and complications related to the fragment occurred 59% of the time. Second surgical procedures occurred sooner in patients treated with a dusting technique compared to those treated with active extraction but the statistical significance of this difference was uncertain.

Portis et al. found that among 218 patients treated with ureteroscopy and active extraction residual stones predicted need for retreatment. At a median follow-up of 4.1 years, patients with residual fragments less than 2mm in size required retreatment 2.4% of the time, compared to 19% among patients with residual fragments 2 to 4 mm in size, and 46% among patients with residual fragment greater than 4mm. Rebuck et al. found a nearly 20% likelihood of retreatment for residual fragments less than 4 mm after ureteroscopy at a mean of 1.6 years.

All in all, both sides in the debate can find reasons for their position. Active extraction leaves behind fewer fragments, but so far in a head to head trial need for less secondary surgery has not been documented. Dusting avoids the cost and complexity of the basket and the sheath, but in the long term may condemn patients to more followup surgery. Time and trial will tell, ultimately.

Follow-Up After Ureteroscopy

Oftentimes urologists will leave a temporary ureteral stent to prevent swelling of the ureter as a result of the procedure. This use of stents is a source of controversy worthy of a future post.

All agree one needs follow-up imaging of the kidneys to tell whether or not stones have been fully removed and whether or not a ureteral stricture (scar) has caused obstruction and  kidney swelling (hydronephrosis), a complication that occurs 1-4% of the time.

Ultrasound Imaging

Ultrasound is relatively inexpensive, requires no radiation, and offers very detailed images of the kidney to determine whether or not there is hydronephrosis. But it is not very accurate at identifying residual stones, particularly small ones. It is also operator dependent and results can vary based upon the experience of the sonographer performing the examination.

KUB X-Rays

Ultrasounds are commonly combined with a kidney x-ray (commonly referred to as a KUB) which is also inexpensive and better at detecting stones with minimal radiation.The majority of published studies to date that have assessed stone free rate after ureterscopy have used KUB/US to determine the presence of residual fragments. Stone free rates using this imaging endpoint are commonly found to be in the mid 80-90%; even for large stones greater than 2 cm in size.  

CT Scans

CT scans are the best test to identify stones, but are more expensive and are associated with higher degrees of radiation. Those studies that have used postoperative CT scans to identify residual stones demonstrate much lower stone free rates, commonly in the range of 50%.  Interestingly the difference appears to be in the small stones <4 mm more likely to be seen on CT scan over KUB/US. If these stones are not taken into consideration, CT scan follow-up would otherwise be on par with that reported in the KUB/US series.

Although the question of whether KUB/US or CT is a better follow-up test is an important one, the more important question is whether or not routine imaging is being performed after the procedure at all. Despite recommendations by the American Urological Association that all patients should undergo at least a minimum of an ultrasound after ureteroscopy (see figure below) ,a recent study from the Cleveland Clinic found that fewer than half of all urologists routinely obtain any postoperative imaging whatsoever.

Screen Shot 2016-01-25 at 10.31.06 PM

Screen Shot 2016-01-25 at 10.30.49 PM

Take Away Messages

The goal of ureteroscopy should be to render the patient stone free 

Regardless of the technique used, the ultimate goal of the procedure should be to leave the patient with no stones. Residual fragments are likely sources of future stone events. Therefore removing all stones should improve long term outcomes.

Urologists should be familiar with all ureteroscopic treatment techniques

Results of studies such as the EDGE group comparing dusting and extraction will determine the gold standard ureteroscopic treatment technique. In all likelihood though, we will come to realize that ureteral anatomy, width, and ability to pass an access sheath as well as the stone themselves will mandate one technique over another for any one patient.

Soft stones, for example, are more likely to fragment to true dust and thus may be more amenable to dusting. Harder stones are more likely to fragment into large pieces and thus benefit from active removal. Infection mandates complete stone removal, potentially harder to achieve with dusting. Alternatively dusting does not require an assistant and thus may be the only feasible option in instances where extra help is not available.

The ureteroscopy should not be the end of the story

Nephrolithiasis often manifests as an acute event ending in ureteroscopy; however, it is increasingly recognized as a chronic condition. As such, it is critical that surgery to remove the stone is not the end of the relationship with the patient.

Residual stones commonly lead to clinical events greater than one year from the time of the initial procedure including growth, passage, and need for retreatment.

Stone disease is chronic and recurrent, and the least desired outcome is formation of new stones after stones have been removed. As many as 50% of first time stone formers will recur within 10 years highlighting the significance and potential benefits to dietary counseling, metabolic testing, surveillance imaging, and other practices to prevent and detect stones over the long-run.

The main thrust of this entire site is toward prevention, before surgery is ever needed and with especial need after a successful surgery so that another need never be performed.

113 Responses to “Ureteroscopy: Background and Current Controversies”

  1. Joyce

    Recently has ureteroscopy and was told am now stone free. Went in today for stent removal and was asked to return in several weeks for intravenous PYelogram to check for a stricture. Is this necessary?

    • Fredric Coe, MD

      Hi Joyce, Your surgeon seems to have concerns about stricture and I would do as s/he says. They do occur, and if present need early treatment. Regards, Fred Coe

  2. Margie

    Dr. Cole, I have spent many hours reading your wonderful articles. I must also add that I appreciate all the art and the backstories that you have taken time to share. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read about my concerns.

    I was an active 63 yr old woman three years ago when I developed a 6mm stone (mid pole in the left side) that was never collected. No further testing was done at that time because within a few weeks I had a series of back, leg, and foot ailments after being prescribed the antibiotic Cipro by my urologist. I believe that particular antibiotic resulted in my being partially disabled (using a walker) and in unbelievable pain for over eight months. I still, and may always, have daily discomfort and limitations. I have since found out that I have an MTHFR gene variant that makes me sensitive to some medications. Thousands of people have reported the horrible side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other similar antibiotics. I will NEVER take another antibiotic in the Fluoroquinolone family again!

    Three years went by and I have not had any kidney stone symptoms until eight weeks ago. So back to the ER for a CT scan. This time it is a 5mm stone that is lower down the same left pole. I had mild discomfort and passed a very small amount of debris one month prior to being diagnosed with this stone. Could this be the same stone that just chipped away and moved farther down? Thank goodness there is no infection this time. Hopefully, I can get the answers I need to feel comfortable in moving forward.

    My urologist wants to go in and break it up with a laser and pull out the pieces but I am not wanting to have general anesthesia because of my MTHFR issues. I would also like to first know if the stone is still there without having another CT scan so soon, and also because when I had this last CT scan (with contrast) in the ER I had a reaction to the dye resulting in painfully swollen salivary glands, so I prefer not to do that again. My urologist ordered an ultrasound and x-ray one week after my ER visit and saw no stone, however, the left kidney is moderately swollen. The report says there is uniform and symmetrical blood flow in each kidney and both kidneys are jetting.
    7/17 Right kidney- 9.5 x 3.9 x 5.5——Left kidney- 10.4 x 6 x 5.7
    The second month’s ultrasound results are that both kidneys are still jetting, but mentions that the left renal pelvis and proximal ureter is dilated. No stone was seen either time.
    8/17 Right kidney- 10.0 x 4.5 x 5.4—–Left kidney- 9.8 x 5.4 x 5.9
    I am confused as to why my right kidney has gone up and my left kidney appears to have gone down. I was told by my urologist that the variation in numbers all depend on the tech doing the test. I hate to have surgery when no stone can be seen. The x-ray did show two phleboliths, low center.

    I asked for referrals to a nephrologist and internist because I feel my urologist is focusing on the “mechanics” and possibly not my whole body and health issues. Last month (July) I saw the Internist and asked for a parathyroid test as stones run in my family after middle age. Parathyroid was 98.5 which I think might be high for a 66yr old woman. My calcium random urine was 12.5. No, follow up after test results. However, the tests showed borderline high blood pressure, cholesterol, and pre-diabetes, BMI 26.60. I did not get any advice on these health issues. The paperwork just said to come back in one year. This month (Aug.) I saw the nephrologist and asked for the 24hr urine test that you have said is important. The nurse called to say everything is normal. No mention about what kind of stones I may be making or what is causing them. I was hoping for information on what foods to avoid for the type of stones I am making, but was only told to avoid salt, spinach and drink lots of water! Beyond that, I have to get my test results online.
    24hr urine test for calcium, phosphorus, and uric acid:
    Timed urine volume was 3,200ml.
    Calcium Timed Urine- 3.2, Calcium Urine Excretion- 102,
    Phosphorus Timed Urine- 14.3, Phosphorus Urine Excretion 0.5,
    Uric Acid Timed Urine- 15.1, Uric Acid Urine Excretion- 483

    I am becoming very concerned about the fact that my kidney may be damaged (or I may need antibiotics again!), but at the same time, I don’t feel like I have been given enough information for making a decision in this matter. My urologist hasn’t heard of MTHFR and I get no real answers about my concerns over surgery, only that my kidney is being damaged and surgery is necessary.

    The reason I am concerned about having general anesthesia is my mother’s rapid mental decline immediately after having a hysterectomy at 85. She lived the next 12 years in private homes and finally a secured Alzheimer’s facility. I believe my mother also had this MTHFR gene variant which could have been a factor. I have also done research on anesthesia in the elderly and found it often affects their mental abilities. I have noticed that over these past two months I have been having difficulties with recalling names and also crankiness. I’m not sure if this is from the contrast dye, or possibly the kidney inflammation. Maybe it’s just the stress from my frustration over all of this but it only adds to my concerns about general anesthesia.

    It all boils down to the fact that I don’t want unnecessary surgery if there is no stone. Is there another way besides a CT (with contrast) scan to see a stone. Any other test I should take? Should I delay this any longer by getting a second opinion?

    I appreciate your consideration in reading this and value any insight you may be able to share.
    Thank you, Margie

    • Fredric Coe, MD

      Hi Margie, A CT without contrast should help here. Stones are very evident. The high PTH could reflect kidney disease, low calcium diet, low vitamin D levels or perhaps primary hyperparathyroidism. The key test is your serum calcium; if it is normal than the PHPT is not reasonable. Your urine calcium of 102 mg/d is actually low so I suspect low calcium diet, reduced kidney function or low vitamin D. Let me know, Regards, Fred Coe

      • Margie

        Hi Dr. Coe, After two months of trying to pass this 5mm stone I am having the ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy done tomorrow. Because of my MTHFR reductase deficiency, my major concern is still the effect of the anesthesia and other drugs. I will not allow nitrous oxide and will share my other concerns with the anesthesiologist before surgery.

        Once this is over I will concentrate on why I am forming these stones. My surgeon plans to retrieve the stone particles and have them analyzed. Hopefully, this will tell me what kind of stones I have and what diet to follow.

        Vitamin D 25-Hydroxy level is 41 ng/mL,
        Vitamin D 1,25-Dihydroxy is 43.0 pg/mL,
        Serum Calcium is 10.0 mg/dL.
        The chart says they are all within the normal range. So does that mean I need more calcium in my diet, and/or to take calcium supplements, or could that mean my kidney function is impaired because of the stone and I should be retested after recovery?

        Should I also have another 24 hr urine test (or more) after recovery? I’m thinking that drinking more water than normal during the first test may have skewed the results. Thank you, Margie

  3. Cindi

    My daughter has been diagnosed with a 1.5cm kidney stone. She has blood in her urine and in pain. She seen a Urologist yesterday and he gave her option to do the Lipotripsy or the Laser Dusting procedure. She needs to decide by tomorrow and we are just not sure which is the better route with such a large stone. Please help us decide . She is 31 and has a 3 year old and an 18 month old baby at home . She is very scared as she has never been sedated for a surgery before. Thank you for your guidance.

    • Fredric Coe, MD

      Hi Cindy, I vastly prefer ureteroscopy with laser dusting to SWL. Your urologist is excellent to offer both! Sorry I am a bit late in writing this, but you wrote just yesterday. Regards, Fred Coe

  4. Bob

    I had my first surgery two days ago to remove several stones from left kidney. No one mentioned to me how difficult the post-op period could be. The day before surgery, I weighed 187. The day after surgery, I weighed 199! Is that kind of water retention normal? (They did make sure I drank like a fish and I had three hanging bags of solution) I also have extreme abdominal soreness, not localized. I do, of course, have a stent and have been told it will be there for a few weeks. I am shocked and dismayed at the aftermath of what is called a noninvasive procedure. And I am to have another surgery on right side in near future. Is the post-op period normally this challenging?

    • Fredric Coe, MD

      Hi Bob, You are not alone. No surgery is minor, and after effects commonly very troublesome. So prevention is a premium. As for your particular course, I think you are about in the middle of what I see. Of course I am not a surgeon, and perhaps see patients with more problems than average. Regards, Fred Coe

  5. H. J. Sea

    Passed my first stone within the last three weeks. Only symptom was blood in my urine. CT showed a 3mm stone in ureter and slight inflammation in kidney. Today’s x-ray showed all clear. Dr. still wants to do a ureteroscopy procedure because there was blood in my urine when I had the stone over a month ago. He said he does this anytime there is visible blood.
    I’m concerned to have such an invasive procedure when I’m currently stone free. If it wasn’t for the reddish urine, I wouldn’t have known I ever had a stone. Is it always a mandatory procedure or should I seek a second opinion to possibly avoid a ureteroscopy. It seems like such a risk.

  6. Linda

    I was out of town and Experienced pain on my right side. Two CT scans found had two 4 mm stones lodged one in each tube. They eventually passed after I was given morphine during 2 back to back ER visits. There were small stones found in the kidneys. One urologist recommended surgery and another did not for one stone that passed soon after.
    I returned home and just saw a urologist who told me Part of the stone the size of a pencil point is lodged in the bladder near the urethra opening and he is concerned about infection. He said he is not doing surgery but will use a scope with a camera and maybe a laser to remove it. Said I might have a stent that I can remove myself. Will have 3 day recovery. I am concerned as this sounds like surgery and he also assured me I could climb 3 flights of stairs after this procedure which would take 30 minutes. I have been drinking lemon water and watching my diet which I think helped dissolve the other stones. After reading the risks I am wondering if I should have this reportedly nonsurgical procedure.

    • Fredric Coe, MD

      Hi Linda, your urologist has made a good recommendation and you should take it. Digital scopes work well, what he said sounds about right to me. I am not there, so it is a guess, but he/she seems perfectly reasonable. Regards, Fred Coe

  7. Angie

    My husband had a 11.7 mm kidney stone; a surgeon performed ureteroscopy to break up and remove the stone. Immediately after surgery, the surgeon told me that he was able to remove nearly all of the stone, that my husband may pass a 2 or 3 granules, but other than that everything went well. He placed a ureter stent to allow for healing.
    The following day, my husband started experiencing severe pain and elevated white blood cells. He ended up being hospitalized for 9 days, and it wasn’t until the eighth day that a different surgeon explained to us that the ureter had been perforated and that there was a portion of stone remaining. He told us that my husband would need to have his stent removed, the stone removed, and a new stent put in place. We are currently awaiting this procedure, planned for 3 weeks from first surgery.
    My question is why the original surgeon did not disclose this even though it is noted in two post-op ct scan reports. My husband was also seen each day by a hospitalist, infectious disease doctor, and a physicians assistant from the urology practice each day that he was in the hospital. The perforated ureter was never disclosed to us by any of these medical professionals. They acted as though they did not know why his white cells were elevated, or why he was in so much pain.
    I am quite concerned about his follow-up surgery after this experience. It is to be performed by the original surgeon

    • Fredric Coe, MD

      Hi Angie, What a bad experience. Of course from this distance I cannot answer your questions well, but if you no longer have confidence in the original surgeon feel free to select another. Perhaps the one who pointed out the problem might be fine. Alternatively, ask your present physicians for a referral. This is your husband, and you have every right to do whatever is necessary to get him the best possible outcome. Ureteral perforation is not rare, incidentally, and may have been managed quite well despite the confusions; I cannot tell. Regards, Fred Coe

  8. robbin

    I am travelling by plane and my doctor wants to do a kidney stone retrieval 2 weeks before. I am worried that if anything goes wrong or I need a stent, that my trip will be ruined. Should I postpone til after vacation?

    • Fredric Coe, MD

      Hi Robbin, It is a matter of judgement. A stone can always pass and cause pain or real urological interventions. Your particular stone may pose special problems. I would ask your physician if the latter is the case; if it is a routine precaution, perhaps you can judge if the risk balances the unpleasantness of a procedure. Regards, Fred Coe


Leave a Reply