{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,15]],"date-time":"2026-08-15T19:52:37Z","timestamp":1786823557589,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":15,"publisher":"Wiley","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2016,1,1]],"date-time":"2016-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1451606400000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["BioMed Research International"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016]]},"abstract":"<jats:p><jats:italic>Objective<\/jats:italic>. To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of retrograde versus antegrade ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones.<jats:italic>Patients and Methods<\/jats:italic>. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients with proximal ureteral stones &gt;15\u2009mm, treated in our institution from January 2011 to January 2016. Intraoperative parameters, postoperative outcomes, and complications were recorded and compared between the two techniques.<jats:italic>Results<\/jats:italic>. Our analysis included 57 patients. Thirty-four patients (59.6%) underwent retrograde and 23 patients (40.4%) underwent antegrade ureteroscopy. There was no significant difference in patients\u2019 demographics and stone characteristics between the groups. Stone-free rate was significantly higher (<mml:math xmlns:mml=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/1998\/Math\/MathML\" id=\"M1\"><mml:mi>p<\/mml:mi><mml:mo>=<\/mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle=\"italic\">0.033<\/mml:mn><\/mml:math>) in the antegrade group (100%) compared to retrograde one (82.4%). Fluoroscopy time, procedure duration, and length of hospitalization were significantly (<mml:math xmlns:mml=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/1998\/Math\/MathML\" id=\"M2\"><mml:mi>p<\/mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;<\/mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle=\"italic\">0.001<\/mml:mn><\/mml:math>) lower in retrograde approach. On the other hand, the need for postoperative stenting was significantly lower in the antegrade group (<mml:math xmlns:mml=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/1998\/Math\/MathML\" id=\"M3\"><mml:mi>p<\/mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;<\/mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle=\"italic\">0.001<\/mml:mn><\/mml:math>). No difference was found between the groups (<mml:math xmlns:mml=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/1998\/Math\/MathML\" id=\"M4\"><mml:mi>p<\/mml:mi><mml:mo>=<\/mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle=\"italic\">0.745<\/mml:mn><\/mml:math>) regarding postoperative complications.<jats:italic>Conclusions<\/jats:italic>. Antegrade ureteroscopy is an efficient and safe option for the management of large proximal ureteral stones. It may achieve high stone-free rates compared to retrograde ureteroscopy with the drawback of longer operative time, fluoroscopy time, and length of hospitalization.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1155\/2016\/6521461","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2016,9,27]],"date-time":"2016-09-27T18:02:47Z","timestamp":1474999367000},"page":"1-4","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":11,"title":["Retrograde versus Antegrade Approach for the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones"],"prefix":"10.1155","volume":"2016","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-3486-0880","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Stavros","family":"Sfoungaristos","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ioannis","family":"Mykoniatis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"G. Gennimatas Hospital, 1st Department of Urology, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ayman","family":"Isid","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ofer N.","family":"Gofrit","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Shilo","family":"Rosenberg","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Guy","family":"Hidas","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ezekiel H.","family":"Landau","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Dov","family":"Pode","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mordechai","family":"Duvdevani","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Hadassah and Hebrew University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Jerusalem, Israel"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"311","reference":[{"key":"1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2015.07.041"},{"key":"2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/s0302-2838(03)00006-x"},{"key":"3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2012.03.055"},{"key":"4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2012.05.047"},{"issue":"2","key":"5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"263","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(17)38310-6","volume":"145","year":"1991","journal-title":"Journal of Urology"},{"key":"6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2006.01.088"},{"key":"7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.ju.0000142848.43880.b3"},{"key":"8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2013.0436"},{"key":"9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/s0022-5347(05)65066-5"},{"key":"10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2007.0230"},{"key":"11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00345-013-1026-2"},{"key":"12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2006.20.616"},{"key":"13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.4103\/0974-7796.115729"},{"key":"14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5489\/cuaj.2280"},{"key":"15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/s1051-0443(94)71456-1"}],"container-title":["BioMed Research International"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/downloads.hindawi.com\/journals\/bmri\/2016\/6521461.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/downloads.hindawi.com\/journals\/bmri\/2016\/6521461.xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/downloads.hindawi.com\/journals\/bmri\/2016\/6521461.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2019,9,13]],"date-time":"2019-09-13T22:08:51Z","timestamp":1568412531000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.hindawi.com\/journals\/bmri\/2016\/6521461\/"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2016]]},"references-count":15,"alternative-id":["6521461","6521461"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1155\/2016\/6521461","relation":{},"ISSN":["2314-6133","2314-6141"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2314-6133","type":"print"},{"value":"2314-6141","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2016]]}}}