Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
PURPOSE: As the prevalence of urolithiasis increases and ureteroscopy is used more frequently, the risks of uncommon complications such as ureteral stricture may become more notable. Our objective is to assess the rate and associated risk factors of ureteral stricture formation in patients undergoing ureteroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Utilizing the IBM MarketScan research database, we evaluated data from 2008 to 2019 and compared ureteral stricture rates and their management following ureteroscopy to subjects who had shock wave lithotripsy. Shock wave lithotripsy was used as a comparison group to represent the rate of stricture from stone disease alone. A third group of those having both shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy was included. Patients and secondary procedures were identified using Current Procedural Terminology, and International Classification of Diseases-9 and -10 codes. RESULTS: A total of 329,776 patients received ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, or shock wave lithotripsy+ureteroscopy between 2008 and 2019. Stricture developed in 2.9% of patients after ureteroscopy, 1.5% after shock wave lithotripsy, and 2.6% after shock wave lithotripsy+ureteroscopy. In the multivariable model, rates of stricture were 1.7-fold higher after ureteroscopy vs shock wave lithotripsy (OR:1.71, 95% CI 1.62-1.81). Preoperative hydronephrosis, age, prior stones/intervention, and concurrent kidney and ureteral stones were associated with increased risk of stricture. Of those with strictures incurred after ureteroscopy, 35% required drainage, 21% had endoscopic intervention, 4.8% required reconstructive surgery, and 1.7% underwent nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Ureteral stricture rate after ureteroscopy of nearly 3% was higher than expected and approximately twice the rate attributable to stone disease alone. Factors associated with the stone as well as instrumentation were found to be risk factors. The morbidity of stricture disease following ureteroscopy was significant.
Sunaryo et al. (Fri,) studied this question.