Table 1.
Strictures after ureteroscopic treatment of ureter stones.
| Study | No. of patients | Age (year) | Stone size (mm)b | Stone location |
Impacted rate (%) | Type of ureteroscopy | Type of lithotripsy | Ureters cope size (Fr) | No. of stricture | Mean follow-up (month) | Incidence (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proximal | Middle | Distal | |||||||||||
| Roberts et al., 1998 [8]a | 21 | 41.6 | 10.3 | 3 | 8 | 10 | 100 | R | LL | 7–10 | 5 | 7.0 | 23.81 |
| Weizer et al., 2002 [9] | 241 | 47.2 | 3–35 | 56 | 111 | 74 | – | R/F | LL | – | 3 | 5.4 | 1.24 |
| Brito et al., 2006 [10]a | 42 | 23–72 | 5–20 | 9 | 12 | 21 | 100 | R | PL | 8.5 | 6 | 6.0 | 14.29 |
| El-Abd et al., 2014 [5] | 1950 | – | – | 789 | – | 1161 | – | R/F | LL/PL | 7.4–8.5 | 12 | 7.6 | 0.6 |
| Adiyat et al., 2009 [11] | 214 | 48.3 | 10.85 | 114 | 42 | 58 | 5.14 | R/F | LL | 6–7.5 | 3 | 14.5 | 1.40 |
| Binbay et al., 2011 [12]a | 80 | 39.9 | – | 12 | 21 | 47 | 100 | R | LL/PL | 8.5 | 1 | 15 | 1.25 |
| de la Rosette et al., 2014 [3] | 10 511 | 48.7 | – | 3101 | 2390 | 5020 | 27.2 | R/F | LL/PL/ UL/EL |
– | 36 | – | 0.30 |
| Li et al., 2015 [13] | 982 | 41.9 | 5–15 | – | 387 | 595 | – | R | LL/PL | 7.5 | 29 | 12 | 2.95 |
| Fam et al., 2015 [14] | 64 | – | – | 21 | 15 | 28 | 100 | R | LL | 6.5 | 5 | 7.0 | 7.81 |
| Combined | 14 105 | – | – | 4105 | 2986 | 7014 | – | – | – | – | 100 | 9.3 | 0.71 |
a
Series of patients with impacted stones; R, rigid ureteroscopy; F, flexible ureteroscopy; LL, laser lithotripsy; PL, pneumatic lithotripsy; UL, ultrasonic lithotripsy; EL, electrohydraulic lithotripsy; –,data deficient or not mentioned.
b
Data presented as mean or range.