Evaluating the Efficacy of Ureteroscopic Management of Proximal Ureteric Calculi using Stone Cone Entrapment Device
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52206/jsmc.2025.15.1.982Abstract
Background: The patient has higher morbidity and financial burden due to the migration of stone particles during lithotripsy. These pieces may need to be recovered using a number of extra steps. These include ureteric stenting, further fragmentation, the necessity for specialized retrieval equipment, flexible ureterorenoscopy, and, in certain situations, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL).
Objectives: To compare the stone clearance rate of ureterorenoscopic (URS) pneumatic lithotripsy with and without stone cone in proximal ureteric stone.
Materials and Methods: There were 94 patients, aged 20 to 60, of both genders, who were having URS lithotripsy and had a single 7–15 mm proximal ureteric stone. Individuals with a single kidney, urinary tract congenital abnormalities, pyonephrosis, and sepsis were not included. The patients were split into two groups at random using the lottery method. Group A underwent URS lithotripsy using a stone cone, whereas Group B underwent URS lithotripsy without a stone cone. A lone surgeon carried out every operation. For 48 hours, the patients were monitored and stone clearance (stone free status as shown on ultrasound scan and X-Ray KUB at 48 hours after the procedure) was recorded.
Results: Patients in groups A and B had mean ages of 36.72 ± 9.64 and 36.89 ± 9.93 years, respectively. The majority of the 65 patients (69.15%) ranged in age from 40 to 120. Of these 94 patients, the ratio was 1.8:1, with 57 (60.64%) being male and 37 (39.36%) being female. 33 (70.21%) patients in group B (URS without stone cone device) and 44 (93.62%) patients in group A (URS with stone cone device) had a stone clearance rate with a p-value of 0.003.
Conclusion: This study concluded that stone clearance rate is significantly higher using stone cone device.
Keywords: Lithotripsy, Proximal, Stone cone device, Ureterorenoscopy, Ureteric stone.
References
Sar?kaya K, ?enocak Ç, Çiftci M, ?bi? MA, Bozkurt ÖF. The effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of large impacted upper ureteral stones. Anatolian Curr Med J 2021;3(2);165-70. https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.888222
Ogreden E, Demirelli E, Aksu M, Tok DS, O?uz U. Early ureteroscopic lithotripsy in acute renal colic caused by ureteral calculi. Int Urol Nephrol 2020;52:15-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02298-9
Abdelbary AM, Al-Dessoukey AA, Moussa AS, Elmarakbi AA, Ragheb AM, Sayed O et al. Value of early second session shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of upper ureteric stones compared to laser ureteroscopy. World J Urol 2021;39(8): 3089-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03560-x
Ranan D, Sarah C, Lorna A, Graeme M, Ruth ET, Mary MK, et al. Shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic treat ment as therapeutic interventions for stones of the ureter (TISU): A multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Eur Urol 2021;80(5):e119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo. 2021.08.021
Kartal I, Baylan B, Çak?c? MÇ, Sar? S, Selmi V, Ozdemir H, et al. Comparison of semirigid ureteroscopy, flexible ureteros copy, and shockwave lithotripsy for initial treatment of 11-20 mm proximal ureteral stones. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia, Andrologia 2020;92(1):39-44. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.1.39
Bhanot R, Jones P, Somani B. Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of ureteric stones–state-of-the-art review. Res Reports Urol 2021;8:227-36. https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S311010
Bangash M, Nazim SM, Jamil S, Ghani MOA, Naeem S. Efficacy and safety of semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy (urs) for proximal ureteral stone ?10 mm. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2020;30(10):1058-62. https://doi.org/10.36348/sjbr.2022.v07i02.004
Zehri A, Patel M, Adebayo PB. Inadvertent Stone Migration During Pneumatic Lithotripsy: Still a Conundrum in the 21st Century. Cureus 2020; 12(9):e10521. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.10521
Govindaraju S, Ettappan A. Evaluating the efficacy of ureteroscopic management of upper ureteric calculi using stone cone entrapment device- a prospective, randomised, controlled study. J Evolution Med Dent Sci 2018;7(25):2921-5. https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2018/658
Khan S, Farooq K, Rehman I, Khan FU, Ahmad B. Comparison of ureteric stone migration and fragmentation with and without stone cone. Khyber J Med Sci 2015;8(3):434-37.
Khan MS, Farooq K. Ureteric Laser Tripsy with and without Stone Cone: Ureteric Laser Tripsy. Pak J Health Sci 2023;4(12):63-7. https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v4i12.1224
Bangash M, Nazim SM, Jamil S, Ghani MOA, Naeem S. Efficacy and safety of semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) for proximal ureteral stone ?10 mm. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2020; 30(10):1058-62. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2020.10.1058
Mustafa G, Mahar NA, Qureshi HH, Mustafa M, Fayaz M, Hassan AS. Comparison of outcomes of extracorpo real shockwave lithotripsy with ureteroscopic lasertripsy for management of proximal ureteral stones. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2024;34(01):101-4. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2024.01.101
Durmus E, Ok F. Comparative analysis of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of childhood proximal ureteral stones. Pediatric Surg Int 2022; 39(1):62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-022-05349-y
Godse S. Use of lidocaine jelly for prevention of inadvertent retrograde stone migration during pneumatic lithotripsy of ureteral stone. Int J Med Res Health Sci 2022;11(4):38-42.
Desai MR, Patel SB, Desai MM, Kukreja R, Sabnis RB, Desai RM, et al. The Dretler Stone Cone: a device to prevent ureteral stone migration – the initial clinical experience. J Urol 2002;167:1985–88. PMID: 11956424
Raphael JE, Danagogo O. The ureteral stone cone is a useful device for the prevention of calculi retropulsion during holmium laser lithotripsy for proximal and mid-ureteric stones. a Nigerian experience. Saudi J Biomed Res 2022;7(2):90-4. https://doi.org/10.36348/sjbr.2022.v07i02.004
Pardalidis NP, Papatsoris AG, Kosmaoglou EV. Prevention of retrograde calculus migration with the Stone Cone. Urol Res 2005;33:61–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-004-0453-3
Pandian P. Efficacy of ureteroscopic management of proximal ureteric calculus using stone cone entrapment device – a prospective randomized control study. International J Curr Adv Res 2018; 7(9):15525-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.24327/ijcar.2018.15528.2837
Bastawisy M, Gameel T, Radwan M, Ramadan A, Alkathiri M, Omar A. A comparison of Stone Cone versus lidocaine jelly in the prevention of ureteral stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Ther Adv Urol 2011;3(5):203–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287211419551
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 The authors retain the copyrights. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website), as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as greater citation of published work.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Readers may “Share-copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format” and “Adapt-remix, transform, and build upon the material”. The readers must give appropriate credit to the source of the material and indicate if changes were made to the material. Readers may not use the material for commercial purpose. The readers may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
