Complications in emergency ureteroscopy for ureteral stone treatment: a retrospective study

Background: Data on complications associated with emergency ureteroscopy for ureteral stones are limited, particularly in developing countries. This study investigates factors contributing to complications in emergency ureteroscopy utilizing a pneumatic semirigid ureteroscope (URS).
Materials and methods: This retrospective analysis included 266 patients with ureteral stones who underwent emergency ureteroscopy using a pneumatic semirigid URS from 2018 to 2023. We extracted comprehensive data on patient demographics, stone characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and stone-free rate (SFR) from medical records, subsequently subjected to statistical analysis. Factors linked to complications were explored through univariate and multivariate analyses.
Results: The mean stone size was 9.1 ± 4.9 mm, with the majority (n = 181, 71.3%) located in the mid-ureter. The mean operative duration was 57.7 ± 7.3 min. The overall complication rate was 10.2%, with intraoperative complications in 16 patients (6.0%), including mucosal damage (3.4%), stone up-migration (3.0%), and one ureteral perforation (0.4%). Postoperative complications occurred in 13 patients (4.9%), primarily fever (2.6%), followed by hematuria (1.1%). Additional complications included febrile urinary tract infections (UTIs), pyelonephritis, and one mortality. The overall SFR was 85.3%, with 39 patients (14.7%) demonstrating residual stones. Significant predictive factors for complications included larger stone size (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR]: 1.3; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.15-1.39, p<0.0001) and proximal ureteral stones (AOR: 4.9; 95% CI: 1.31-18.23, p=0.0182).
Conclusions: Emergency ureteroscopy using a semirigid URS demonstrated favorable outcomes in treating ureteral stones, characterized by minimal complications and an acceptable SFR. Emphasizing appropriate instrument selection, surgical expertise, and technique is crucial in minimizing adverse events, particularly for large and upper ureteral stones.

The global, regional, and national burden of urolithiasis in 204 countries and territories, 2000-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. E Clinical Medicine. 2024;78:102924.

Yoo MJ, Pelletier J, Koyfman A, et al. High risk and low prevalence diseases: Infected urolithiasis. Am J Emerg Med. 2024; 75:137-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2023.10.049

De Coninck V, Keller EX, Somani B, et al. Complications of ureteroscopy: a complete overview. World J Urol. 2020; 38:2147-2166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-03012-1

Tanriverdi O, Silay MS, Kadihasanoglu M, et al. Revisiting the predictive factors for intra-operative complications of rigid ureteroscopy: a 15-year experience. Urol J. 2012; 9:457-64.

Wason SE, Monfared S, Ionson A, et al. Ureteroscopy. 2024 Apr 20. In: StatPearls (Internet). Treasure Island: StatPearls Publishing; 2025.

Kaczmarek K, Jankowska M, Kalembkiewicz J, et al. Assessment of the incidence and risk factors of postoperative urosepsis in patients undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Cent European J Urol. 2024;77:122-128.

Fuganti PE, Pires S, Branco R, et al. Predictive factors for intraoperative complications in semirigid ureteroscopy: analysis of 1235 ballistic ureterolithotripsies. Urology. 2008; 72:770-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.05.042

Farahat YA, Elbahnasy AE, Elashry OM. A randomized prospective controlled study for assessment of different ureteral occlusion devices in prevention of stone migration during pneumatic lithotripsy. Urology. 2011; 77:30-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.05.063

Francesca F, Scattoni V, Nava L, et al. Failures and complications of transurethral ureteroscopy in 297 cases: conventional rigid instruments vs. small caliber semirigid ureteroscopes. Eur Urol. 1995;28:112-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000475032

Tepeler A, Resorlu B, Sahin T, et al. Categorization of intraoperative ureteroscopy complications using modified Satava classification system. World J Urol. 2014; 32:131-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1054-y

Mandal S, Goel A, Singh MK, et al. Clavien classification of semirigid ureteroscopy complications: a prospective study. Urology. 2012;80:995-1001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.05.047

Molina WR, Kim FJ, Spendlove J, et al. The S.T.O.N.E. Score: a new assessment tool to predict stone free rates in ureteroscopy from pre-operative radiological features. Int Braz J Urol. 2014; 40:23-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.01.04

Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Nita G, et al. Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol. 2006; 20:179-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2006.20.179

Zheng J, Wang Y, Chen B, et al. Risk factors for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a case-control study and analysis of 385 cases of holmium laser ureterolithotripsy. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2020; 15:185-191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2019.85360

Gaizauskas A, Markevicius M, Gaizauskas S, et al. Possible complications of ureteroscopy in modern endourological era: two-point or "scabbard" avulsion. Case Rep Urol. 2014; 2014:308093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/308093

Fathelbab TK, Abdelhamid AM, Anwar AZM, et al. Prevention of stone retropulsion during ureteroscopy: Limitations in resources invites revival of old techniques. Arab J Urol. 2020; 18:252-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2020.1805966

Perez Castro E, Osther PJ, Jinga V, et al. Differences in ureteroscopic stone treatment and outcomes for distal, mid-, proximal, or multiple ureteral locations: the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society ureteroscopy global study. Eur Urol. 2014;66:102-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.011

Alameddine M, Azab MM, Nassir AA. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy: Proximal versus distal ureteral stones. Urol Ann. 2016; 8:84-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.171495

Shrestha B, Koju R, Makaju Shrestha S, et al. Predictors of Stone Free Rate and Application of the Size, Topography, Obstruction, Number and Evaluation of Hounsfield Units (S.T.O.N.E) Scoring System in Predicting the Outcome in Patients Undergoing Semi-rigid Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Ureteric Calculi at a University Hospital of Nepal. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2024; 22:31-35.

Kim JW, Chae JY, Kim JW, et al. Computed tomography-based novel prediction model for the stone-free rate of ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Urolithiasis. 2014; 42:75-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0609-0

Sirirak N, Sangkum P, Phengsalae Y, et al. External Validation of the S.T.O.N.E. Score in Predicting Stone-Free Status After Rigid Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy. Res Rep Urol. 2021;13:147-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S304221

Mohammed S, Redi S, Berhe T, et al. Ureteroscopy Outcome and Its Determinants in a Resource-Limited Setting. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2022;32:947-954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v32i5.10

El-Qadhi M. Outcome of ureteroscopy for the management of distal ureteric calculi: 5-years’ experience. Afr J Urol. 2015; 21:67-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afju.2014.08.002

Mursi K, Elsheemy MS, Morsi HA, et al. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy for ureteric and renal pelvic calculi: Predictive factors for complications and success. Arab J Urol. 2013; 11:136-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2013.04.008

Almusafer M, Jawad Al-Tawri A. Complications of ureteroscopic stone lithotripsy: A multicentre local study. Hamdan Med J. 2019;12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/HMJ.HMJ_73_18

Mustafa M, Al Zabadi H, Mansour S, et al. Endoscopic Management of Upper and Lower Ureteric Stones Using Pneumatic Lithotripter: A Retrospective Medical Records Review. Res Rep Urol. 2023; 15:77-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S392881

Wagenius M, Rydberg M, Popiolek M, et al. Ureteroscopy: a population based study of clinical complications and possible risk factors for stone surgery. Cent European J Urol. 2019; 72:285-295.

Bhojani N, Miller LE, Bhattacharyya S, et al. Risk Factors for Urosepsis After Ureteroscopy for Stone Disease: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. J Endourol. 2021; 35:991-1000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.1133

Daly KF, Mac Curtain BM, Collins E, et al. An analysis of the predictive factors for stone clearance at primary ureteroscopy. Ir J Med Sci. 2024; 193:2531-2535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-024-03703-8

Waseda Y, Takazawa R, Kobayashi M, et al. Risk factors and predictive model for incidence of difficult ureter during retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Int J Urol. 2022; 29:542-546. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14835

Bin X, Friedlander JI, Chuang KW, et al. Predictive factors for intraoperative balloon dilation in semirigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2012; 26:988-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0557

Osther PJS, Osther SS, Hesselholt MP, et al. Understanding intrarenal backflow: Intrarenal pressure during ureteroscopy and beyond. Asian J Urol. 2024; 11:139-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2024.01.008

Kim JW, Lee YJ, Ha YS, et al. Secondary signs on preoperative CT as predictive factors for febrile urinary tract infection after ureteroscopic lithotripsy. BMC Urol. 2020; 20:131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00701-7

Elganainy E, Hameed DA, Elgammal M, et al. Experience with impacted upper ureteral stones; should we abandon using semirigid ureteroscopes and pneumatic lithoclast? Int Arch Med. 2009; 2:13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-7682-2-13

Kurahashi T, Miyake H, Oka N, et al. Clinical outcome of ureteroscopic lithotripsy for 2,129 patients with ureteral stones. Urol Res. 2007;35:149-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-007-0095-3

Pace KT, Kroczak T, Wijnstok NJ, et al. Same Session Bilateral Ureteroscopy for Multiple Stones: Results from the CROES URS Global Study. J Urol. 2017; 198:130-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.074