Dual usage of a stone basket: Stone capture and retropulsion prevention

  • Tadeusz Kroczak Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada
  • Daniela Ghiculete Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada
  • Robert Sowerby Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada
  • Michael Ordon Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada
  • Jason Y. Lee Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada
  • Kenneth T. Pace Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada
  • John R. Honey Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada

Abstract

Introduction: Stone migration during ureteroscopy (URS) for proximal ureteric calculi is a constant challenge. Several retropulsion prevention devices have been developed to optimize URS outcomes. Our technique involves capturing the stone within a fourwire Nitinol stone basket and then performing laser lithotripsy to dust the stone while it is engaged in the basket. The dusted fragments wash out with the irrigation fluid and once small enough, the remaining stone is removed intact.

Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed of all proximal semi-rigid URS procedures for a solitary calculus (2000– 2016). We compared our new technique introduced in 2010 to URS control procedures that did not use retropulsion prevention techniques or devices.

Results: One hundred and forty patients underwent URS for proximal ureteric calculi. Mean stone diameter was 9.3±3.4 mm, with similar impaction rate between both groups (44.1% vs. 43.1% control; p=n/s). The mean surgical procedure time was 53.3±17.9 minutes for the new technique and 65.2±29.2 minutes for the control group (p=0.005). Compared to the new technique, the control group had a higher rate of retropulsion (33.3% vs. 14.7%; p=0.01) and required flexible URS more often to exclude or remove residual fragments (24.1% vs. 59.1%; p=0.001). Using the new technique, stone-free rates were higher (79.1% vs. 69.4%; p=n/s) and there was a lower likelihood of leaving residual fragments both <3 mm and ≥3 mm (p=0.001).

Conclusions: Our novel technique results in shorter operative times, lower retropulsion rates, and decreases postoperative residual stone fragments.

Published
2018-05-25
How to Cite
Kroczak, T., Ghiculete, D., Sowerby, R., Ordon, M., Lee, J. Y., Pace, K. T., & Honey, J. R. (2018). Dual usage of a stone basket: Stone capture and retropulsion prevention. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 12(8). https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5021
Section
Original Research