Medical Questions > Conditions and Diseases > Kidney Conditions Forum

a 4mm Kidney Stone In the Ureter

Must Read
The kidneys filter blood and regulate body flood. What happens during kidney failure? And what types of kidney failure do doctors diagnose?...
There are three main condition which cause renal (kidney) failure. Learn what causes kidney failure and what factors increase your risk of kidney problems....
What are the signs of acute or chronic kidney failure? Which ones are more serious than others? And when should you ask a doctor or go to the ER for help?...
I'm a 41 years old male with a family history of kidney stones living in Toronto. About 5 few weeks ago I've been diagnosed with a kidney stone. The CT scan performed on June 22 showed a 4 mm stone located in the upper part of the ureter. Prior to the CT scan, the stone had moved a couple of centimeters down the ureter according to the X-ray. Last week I was finally able to get a urologist to see me. He briefly looked at the CT scan and told me that he would need to perform a ureteroscopy, since the stone was too big and, if it didn't pass in one month, it will probably never will on its own.

I'm originally from Eastern Europe and my best friend over there is a urologist with more than 15 years of clinical experience. According to him, in that country no doctor will EVER perform a ureteroscopy for a 4 mm stone. They believe it's not worth to undertake such a relatively risky and complex procedure for such a small stone before other methods have been tried. For example, they prescribe a medicine that could either soften/dissolve the stone or widen the blood vessels in order to let the stone pass.

I'm under impression that here in North America the alternative methods of stone treatment are not used at all. Currently I have no major pain, the stone seems to be inactive and I would rather avoid a surgery, which always has its own risks (general anesthesia, for example) and which is followed by some very unpleasant and painfull procedures (stent removal).

I would even prefer the shock wave treatment, however he urologist hadn' t offered that option. Another thing - most internet resources suggest that 80% of stones of 4 mm and smaller should pass on its own. My CT scan summaty shows it is 4 mm. What's the reason my urologist claims it's too big and he wants to perform a surgery right away without trying anything else?
Did you find this post helpful?
|

User Profile
replied July 14th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Hello,

I had a 4mm stone that passed on it's own with a couple of days. Surgery was never, ever mentioned to me.

I would get a third opinion.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 16th, 2007
Re: a 4mm Kidney Stone In the Ureter
Martin66 wrote:
I'm a 41 years old male with a family history of kidney stones living in Toronto. About 5 few weeks ago I've been diagnosed with a kidney stone. The CT scan performed on June 22 showed a 4 mm stone located in the upper part of the ureter. Prior to the CT scan, the stone had moved a couple of centimeters down the ureter according to the X-ray. Last week I was finally able to get a urologist to see me. He briefly looked at the CT scan and told me that he would need to perform a ureteroscopy, since the stone was too big and, if it didn't pass in one month, it will probably never will on its own.

I'm originally from Eastern Europe and my best friend over there is a urologist with more than 15 years of clinical experience. According to him, in that country no doctor will EVER perform a ureteroscopy for a 4 mm stone. They believe it's not worth to undertake such a relatively risky and complex procedure for such a small stone before other methods have been tried. For example, they prescribe a medicine that could either soften/dissolve the stone or widen the blood vessels in order to let the stone pass.

I'm under impression that here in North America the alternative methods of stone treatment are not used at all. Currently I have no major pain, the stone seems to be inactive and I would rather avoid a surgery, which always has its own risks (general anesthesia, for example) and which is followed by some very unpleasant and painfull procedures (stent removal).

I would even prefer the shock wave treatment, however he urologist hadn' t offered that option. Another thing - most internet resources suggest that 80% of stones of 4 mm and smaller should pass on its own. My CT scan summaty shows it is 4 mm. What's the reason my urologist claims it's too big and he wants to perform a surgery right away without trying anything else?
I had some that size and they came out in time.Im new here hope i answeree in the right place.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied July 16th, 2007
Supporter
Hi
If it were me, I'd find another urologist as well. This one you have seems to be surgery happy or jumping the gun. My husband has a history of kidney stones....I wish I'd kept the ones he's passed..I should have a necklace by now! Not sure of the size of the ones he's passed in the past, but do know he was in a lot of pain. I would find another Doctor who at least would explain ot me why this first one is in such a rush to perform surgery............doesn't sound correct! Cool
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 27th, 2007
Re: a 4mm Kidney Stone In the Ureter
Martin66 wrote:
I'm a 41 years old male with a family history of kidney stones living in Toronto. About 5 few weeks ago I've been diagnosed with a kidney stone. The CT scan performed on June 22 showed a 4 mm stone located in the upper part of the ureter. Prior to the CT scan, the stone had moved a couple of centimeters down the ureter according to the X-ray. Last week I was finally able to get a urologist to see me. He briefly looked at the CT scan and told me that he would need to perform a ureteroscopy, since the stone was too big and, if it didn't pass in one month, it will probably never will on its own.

I'm originally from Eastern Europe and my best friend over there is a urologist with more than 15 years of clinical experience. According to him, in that country no doctor will EVER perform a ureteroscopy for a 4 mm stone. They believe it's not worth to undertake such a relatively risky and complex procedure for such a small stone before other methods have been tried. For example, they prescribe a medicine that could either soften/dissolve the stone or widen the blood vessels in order to let the stone pass.

I'm under impression that here in North America the alternative methods of stone treatment are not used at all. Currently I have no major pain, the stone seems to be inactive and I would rather avoid a surgery, which always has its own risks (general anesthesia, for example) and which is followed by some very unpleasant and painfull procedures (stent removal).

I would even prefer the shock wave treatment, however he urologist hadn' t offered that option. Another thing - most internet resources suggest that 80% of stones of 4 mm and smaller should pass on its own. My CT scan summaty shows it is 4 mm. What's the reason my urologist claims it's too big and he wants to perform a surgery right away without trying anything else?
Drink lots and lots of water.It might still pass.
most give it 6 to 8 weeks.and that size usally pass.get alot of exercise also even if your in pain .i just had a lipotripsy done on a ureteral stone that was up high.im praying it all came out and keeps up.however mine was larger.
|
Did you find this post helpful?