JOURNAL OF UROLOGY AND ANDROLOGY RESEARCH
Perspective Article
Oct 08, 2026 20 31

Endourological Ureteral Strictures After Urolithiasis Treatment: A Narrative Review of Incidence, Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, Prevention, Surveillance, and Management

Aidos Mazhenov 1 * ,
Ulanbek Zhanbyrbekuly 1,
Yerzhan Sharapatov 1,
Yuriy Pak 2,
Aziz Mukhamedzhanuly 2
1 Department of Urology and Andrology, NJSC "Astana Medical University", Astana, Kazakhstan2 "City Multidisciplinary Hospital №2", Astana, Kazakhstan* Corresponding Author
Journal of Urology and Andrology Research, 1(1), 2026, juar005
Publication date: Oct 08, 2026
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Background: Ureteral stricture is an uncommon but disproportionately morbid late complication of endourological stone surgery, presenting weeks to years after an ostensibly successful procedure and capable of producing silent, progressive renal damage if surveillance is inadequate.
Objective: To synthesize contemporary evidence on the incidence, pathophysiology, risk factors, prevention, surveillance, and management of ureteral strictures after ureteroscopy (URS), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL), focusing on impacted ureteral stones and ureteral access sheath (UAS)-related injury as two consistently implicated and potentially modifiable contributors.
Evidence Acquisition: This narrative review was informed by a structured literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by reference-list screening and forward citation tracking. The core search window was January 2015 through December 2025, with earlier landmark studies retained when foundational and targeted citation updating performed during manuscript revision. Because the work is a narrative review rather than a systematic review, no de novo meta-analysis or formal study-level risk-of-bias scoring was undertaken. Database-specific search strategies are provided in Supplementary Appendix S1.
Evidence Synthesis: Pooled stricture rates are 1.9% after URS (4.9% with impacted stones), 2.1% after PCNL, and 1.3% after SWL; UAS-related injury requiring prolonged stenting occurs in 1.8% of RIRS cases in the largest registry, while any-grade endoscopic UAS wall injury reaches 46.5%. Ureteral perforation at the site of an impacted stone is the most consistently reported risk factor. Pathophysiologically, macrophage- and fibroblast-derived TGF-β1 contributes to a myofibroblast–collagen cascade triggered by ischemia, chronic obstruction, and infection. Prevention evidence supports pre-stenting in selected difficult ureters, sheath-size matching, controlled laser energy, and drainage of a substantially traumatized ureter. Postoperative surveillance remains unstandardized. Endoscopic management can achieve high early technical success, but durability decreases over time in anatomically complex strictures, whereas reconstructive surgery offers more durable treatment at the cost of greater invasiveness.
Conclusions: Post-endourological ureteral stricture is uncommon but clinically important. The highest-risk setting is an impacted or proximal stone complicated by perforation or high-grade ureteral injury. Prevention, documentation of intraoperative injury, selective early imaging in high-risk patients, and anatomy-based treatment selection are the most practical strategies supported by the current evidence.

KEYWORDS

Ureteral Stricture Urolithiasis Ureteroscopy Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Ureteral Access Sheath Impacted Ureteral Stone Endourology

CITATION (Vancouver)

Mazhenov A, Zhanbyrbekuly U, Sharapatov Y, Pak Y, Mukhamedzhanuly A. Endourological Ureteral Strictures After Urolithiasis Treatment: A Narrative Review of Incidence, Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, Prevention, Surveillance, and Management. Journal of Urology and Andrology Research. 2026;1(1):juar005.
APA
Mazhenov, A., Zhanbyrbekuly, U., Sharapatov, Y., Pak, Y., & Mukhamedzhanuly, A. (2026). Endourological Ureteral Strictures After Urolithiasis Treatment: A Narrative Review of Incidence, Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, Prevention, Surveillance, and Management. Journal of Urology and Andrology Research, 1(1), juar005.
Harvard
Mazhenov, A., Zhanbyrbekuly, U., Sharapatov, Y., Pak, Y., and Mukhamedzhanuly, A. (2026). Endourological Ureteral Strictures After Urolithiasis Treatment: A Narrative Review of Incidence, Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, Prevention, Surveillance, and Management. Journal of Urology and Andrology Research, 1(1), juar005.
AMA
Mazhenov A, Zhanbyrbekuly U, Sharapatov Y, Pak Y, Mukhamedzhanuly A. Endourological Ureteral Strictures After Urolithiasis Treatment: A Narrative Review of Incidence, Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, Prevention, Surveillance, and Management. Journal of Urology and Andrology Research. 2026;1(1), juar005.
Chicago
Mazhenov, Aidos, Ulanbek Zhanbyrbekuly, Yerzhan Sharapatov, Yuriy Pak, and Aziz Mukhamedzhanuly. "Endourological Ureteral Strictures After Urolithiasis Treatment: A Narrative Review of Incidence, Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, Prevention, Surveillance, and Management". Journal of Urology and Andrology Research 2026 1 no. 1 (2026): juar005.
MLA
Mazhenov, Aidos et al. "Endourological Ureteral Strictures After Urolithiasis Treatment: A Narrative Review of Incidence, Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, Prevention, Surveillance, and Management". Journal of Urology and Andrology Research, vol. 1, no. 1, 2026, juar005.

REFERENCES

  1. GBD Urolithiasis Collaborators. The global, regional, and national burden of urolithiasis in 204 countries and territories, 2000–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. EClinicalMedicine. 2024;78:102924. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102924
  2. Zhang L, Zhang X, Pu Y, Zhang Y. Global, regional, and national burden of urolithiasis from 1990 to 2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Clin Epidemiol. 2022;14:971–983. doi:10.2147/CLEP.S370591
  3. Borumandnia N, et al. Longitudinal trend of urolithiasis incidence rates among world countries during past decades. BMC Urol. 2023;23:166. doi:10.1186/s12894-023-01336-0
  4. Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK. Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol. 2017;31:547–556. doi:10.1089/end.2016.0895
  5. Rukin NJ, Siddiqui ZA, Chedgy ECP, Somani BK. Trends in upper tract stone disease in England: evidence from the Hospital Episodes Statistics database. Urol Int. 2017;98:391–396. doi:10.1159/000449510
  6. Skolarikos A, Davis NF, Geraghty R, Jung H, Kamphuis G, Neisius A, Petrík A, Somani B, Tailly T, Tzelves L, Gambaro G. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. European Association of Urology; 2026.
  7. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society guideline, Part I. J Urol. 2016;196:1153–1160. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
  8. Moretto S, Saita A, Scoffone CM, Talso M, Somani B, Traxer O, et al. Ureteral stricture rate after endoscopic treatments for urolithiasis and related risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2024;42:234. doi:10.1007/s00345-024-04933-2
  9. Tonyali S, Yilmaz M, Tzelves L, Emiliani E, De Coninck V, Keller EX, Miernik A. Predictors of ureteral strictures after retrograde ureteroscopic treatment of impacted ureteral stones: a systematic literature review. J Clin Med. 2023;12(10):3603. doi:10.3390/jcm12103603
  10. Schuster TG, Hollenbeck BK, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS Jr. Complications of ureteroscopy: analysis of predictive factors. J Urol. 2001;166:538–540. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65978-2
  11. Roberts WW, Cadeddu JA, Micali S, Kavoussi LR, Moore RG. Ureteral stricture formation after removal of impacted calculi. J Urol. 1998;159:723–726. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63711-X
  12. Ulvik O, Harneshaug JR, Gjengsto P. Ureteral strictures following ureteroscopic stone treatment. J Endourol. 2021;35:985–990. doi:10.1089/end.2020.0421
  13. Al-Nabulsi Z, Phan YC, Abdalla O, Austin T, Tanasescu G, Osborn P, Auer A, Rowbotham C, Ismail M. Surgical and radiological predictive factors for ureteric stricture formation in patients treated with ureteroscopy for ureteric stones. Scand J Urol. 2021;55:394–398. doi:10.1080/21681805.2021.1953581
  14. Brito AH, Mitre AI, Srougi M. Ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy of impacted ureteral calculi. Int Braz J Urol. 2006;32:295–299. doi:10.1590/S1677-55382006000300006
  15. Bayar G, Tanrıverdi O, Horasanlı K, Dalkılıç A. Ureteroscopy outcomes, complications and management of perforations in impacted ureter stones. J Urol Surg. 2016;3:133–137. doi:10.4274/jus.971
  16. Alazaby H, Mohey A, Omar R, Sebaey A, Gharib T. Impacted ≥10-mm pelvic ureteric stone treatment: laser lithotripsy alone or in combination with pneumatic lithotripsy. Afr J Urol. 2020;26:16. doi:10.1186/s12301-020-00028-7
  17. May PC, Hsi RS, Tran H, Stoller ML, Chew BH, Chi T, Usawachintachit M, Duty BD, Gore JL, Harper JD. The morbidity of ureteral strictures in patients with prior ureteroscopic stone surgery: multi-institutional outcomes. J Endourol. 2018;32:309–314. doi:10.1089/end.2017.0657
  18. Xi Q, Wang S, Ye Z, Liu J. Combined removal of stones with resection of concurrent pathologic ureter may be a preferred treatment for impacted ureteral stones with stricture lesions. J Endourol. 2009;23:243–247. doi:10.1089/end.2008.0507
  19. Hu H, Xu L, Wang S, Yu X, Yang H, Peng E, Cui L, Li C. Ureteral stricture formation after removal of proximal ureteral stone: retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy versus ureteroscopy with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3483. doi:10.7717/peerj.3483
  20. Shao Y, Wang DW, Lu GL, Shen ZJ. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm. World J Urol. 2015;33:1841–1845. doi:10.1007/s00345-015-1545-0
  21. Güler Y, Erbin A. Comparative evaluation of retrograde intrarenal surgery, antegrade ureterorenoscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm. Cent European J Urol. 2021;74:57–63. doi:10.5173/ceju.2021.0174.R1
  22. O'Sullivan DC, Lemberger RJ, Bishop MC, Bates CP, Dunn M. Ureteric stricture formation following ureteric instrumentation in patients with a nephrostomy drain in place. Br J Urol. 1994;74:165–169. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.1994.tb16580.x
  23. Xiong M, Zhu X, Chen D, Hossain MA, Xie Y, Gou X, Deng Y. Post ureteroscopic stone surgery ureteral strictures management: a retrospective study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2020;52:841–849. doi:10.1007/s11255-020-02375-4
  24. Degirmenci T, Gunlusoy B, Kozacioglu Z, Arslan M, Koras O, Arslan B, Minareci S. Comparison of Ho:YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in the treatment of impacted ureteral stones: an analysis of risk factors. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2014;30:153–158. doi:10.1016/j.kjms.2013.08.007
  25. Tan J, Yu Z, Ling X, et al. Main pathological changes of benign ureteral strictures. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:916145. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.916145
  26. Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol. 2013;189:580–584. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.197
  27. De Coninck V, Keller EX, Rodríguez-Monsalve M, Audouin M, Doizi S, Traxer O. Systematic review of ureteral access sheaths: facts and myths. BJU Int. 2018;122:959–969. doi:10.1111/bju.14389
  28. De Coninck V, Keller EX, Somani B, Giusti G, Proietti S, Rodriguez-Socarras M, et al. Complications of ureteroscopy: a complete overview. World J Urol. 2020;38:2147–2166. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-03012-1
  29. Aykanat C, Balci M, Senel C, Ozercan AY, Coser S, Aslan Y, et al. The impact of ureteral access sheath size on perioperative parameters and postoperative ureteral stricture in retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Endourol. 2022;36:1013–1017. doi:10.1089/end.2021.0751
  30. Kaler KS, Lama DJ, Safiullah S, Cooper V, Valley ZA, O'Leary ML, et al. Ureteral access sheath deployment: how much force is too much? Initial studies with a novel ureteral access sheath force sensor in the porcine ureter. J Endourol. 2019;33:712–718. doi:10.1089/end.2019.0211
  31. Cooper JL, François N, Sourial MW, Miyagi H, Rose JR, Shields J, et al. The impact of ureteral access sheath use on the development of abnormal postoperative upper tract imaging after ureteroscopy. J Urol. 2020;204:976–981. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001147
  32. Stern KL, Loftus CJ, Doizi S, Traxer O, Monga M. A prospective study analyzing the association between high-grade ureteral access sheath injuries and the formation of ureteral strictures. Urology. 2019;128:38–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.02.032
  33. Patel AU, Aldoukhi AH, Majdalany SE, Plott J, Ghani KR. Development and testing of an anatomic in vitro kidney model for measuring intrapelvic pressure during ureteroscopy. Urology. 2021;154:83–88. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.04.024
  34. Giulioni C, Fuligni D, Brocca C, Ragoori D, Chew BH, Emiliani E, Heng CT, Tanidir Y, Gadzhiev N, Singh A, Bin Hamri S, Soehabali B, Galosi AB, Tailly T, Traxer O, Somani BK, Wroclawski ML, Gauhar V, Castellani D. Evaluating the safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): intra- and early postoperative complications in patients enrolled in the global multicentre flexible ureteroscopy outcome registry (FLEXOR). Int Braz J Urol. 2024;50(4):459–469. doi:10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0055
  35. Gauhar V, Chew BH, Traxer O, Tailly T, Emiliani E, Inoue T, et al. Indications, preferences, global practice patterns and outcomes in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones in adults: results from a multicenter database of 6669 patients of the global FLEXible ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry (FLEXOR). World J Urol. 2023;41:567–574. doi:10.1007/s00345-022-04257-z
  36. Corrales M, Sierra A, Doizi S, Traxer O. Risk of sepsis in retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;44:84–91. doi:10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.008
  37. Koras O, Bozkurt IH, Karakoyunlu AN, Celik S, Sefik E, Yarimoglu S, et al. Retrospective analysis of the factors affecting intraoperative and immediate postoperative complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery classified by the Clavien and Satava grading systems. J Endourol. 2021;35:1764–1772. doi:10.1089/end.2021.0238
  38. Djojodimedjo T, Soebadi DM, Soetjipto. Escherichia coli infection induces mucosal damage and expression of proteins promoting urinary stone formation. Urolithiasis. 2013;41:295–301. doi:10.1007/s00240-013-0577-4
  39. Negrete-Pulido O, Gutierrez-Aceves J. Management of infectious complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2009;23:1757–1762. doi:10.1089/end.2009.1547
  40. Ueshima E, Fujimori M, Kodama H, et al. Macrophage-secreted TGF-β1 contributes to fibroblast activation and ureteral stricture after ablation injury. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2019;317(1):F52–F64. doi:10.1152/ajprenal.00260.2018
  41. Dong H, Peng Y, Li L, Gao X. Prevention strategies for ureteral stricture following ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Asian J Urol. 2018;5(2):94–100. doi:10.1016/j.ajur.2017.09.002
  42. Chen W, Cao Z. Predictive value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio for the clinical outcome of patients with ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Urol. 2026;26:47. doi:10.1186/s12894-025-02042-9
  43. Ordulu R, Aydın M, Küçük E, Yıldız H, Ulubay M, Akdeniz E, Atilla MK. Can the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and platelet/lymphocyte ratio be used to predict the risk of ureteral stricture following ureteroscopy? Endourol Bull. 2024;16(3):99–107. doi:10.54233/endourolbull-1526700
  44. Elsaraya N, Gordon-Irshai A, Schwarzfuchs D, Novack V, Mabjeesh NJ, Neulander EZ. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as an early indicator for ureteral catheterization in patients with renal colic due to upper urinary tract lithiasis. PLoS One. 2022;17(6):e0270706. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270706
  45. Lee KS, Ha JS, Koo KC. Significance of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a novel indicator of spontaneous ureter stone passage. Yonsei Med J. 2017;58(5):988–993. doi:10.3349/ymj.2017.58.5.988
  46. Topaktaş R, Ürkmez A, Tokuç E, Akyüz M, Kutluhan MA. Hematologic parameters and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in the prediction of urethroplasty success. Int Braz J Urol. 2019;45:264–271. doi:10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0682
  47. Yavuzsan AH, Kirecci SL, Ilgi M, et al. Failure of ureteral access sheath insertion in primary flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones: is there any relation with inflammation? Aktuelle Urol. 2022;53(1):67–74. doi:10.1055/a-1378-2495
  48. Cetti RJ, Biers S, Keoghane SR. The difficult ureter: what is the incidence of pre-stenting? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011;93(1):31–33. doi:10.1308/003588411X12851639106990
  49. Söylemez H, Yıldırım K, Utangac MM, Aydoğan TB, Ezer M, Atar M. A new alternative for difficult ureter in adult patients: no need to dilate ureter via a balloon or a stent with the aid of 4.5F semirigid ureteroscope. J Endourol. 2016;30(6):650–654. doi:10.1089/end.2016.0118
  50. Wang B, Gao W, Yang K, Liu H, Han Y, Diao M, Zuo C, Zhang M, Diao Y, Li Z, Li X, Wang G, Zhang P, Wang C, Xiao C, Huang C, Gu Y, Li X. Analysis of the efficacy and risk factors for failure of balloon dilation for benign ureteral stricture. J Clin Med. 2023;12(4):1655. doi:10.3390/jcm12041655
  51. Tyritzis S, Wiklund NJ. Ureteral strictures revisited…trying to see the light at the end of the tunnel: a comprehensive review. J Endourol. 2015;29:124–136. doi:10.1089/end.2014.0522
  52. Bilotta A, Wiegand L, Heinsimer KJI, Heinsimer KR. Ureteral reconstruction for complex strictures: a review of the current literature. Int Urol Nephrol. 2021;53:2211–2219. doi:10.1007/s11255-021-02985-6
  53. Ganzer R, Franz T, Rai B, Siemer S, Stolzenburg JU. Management of ureteral strictures and hydronephrosis. Urologe. 2015;54:1147–1156. doi:10.1007/s00120-015-3870-8
  54. Lu C, Zhang W, Peng Y, Li L, Gao X, Liu M, Fang Z. Endoscopic balloon dilatation in the treatment of benign ureteral strictures: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Endourol. 2019;33:255–262. doi:10.1089/end.2018.0797
  55. Fan S, Yin L, Yang K, Wang J, Li X, Xiong S, Yu X, Li Z, Guan H, Zhu H, Zhang P, Li X, Zhou L. Posteriorly augmented anastomotic ureteroplasty with lingual mucosal onlay grafts for long proximal ureteral strictures: 10 cases of experience. J Endourol. 2021;35(2):192–199. doi:10.1089/end.2020.0686
  56. Wolf J, Elashry O, Clayman R. Long-term results of endoureterotomy for benign ureteral and ureteroenteric strictures. J Urol. 1997;158:759–764. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64308-8
  57. Richter F, Irwin R, Watson R, Lang EK. Endourologic management of benign ureteral strictures with and without compromised vascular supply. Urology. 2000;55:652–657. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00484-2
  58. Ahmad Para S, Saleem Wani M, Hamid A, Ahmad Malik S, Rouf Khawaja A, Mehdi S. Incidence of ureteric strictures following ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy: holmium:YAG versus thulium fiber laser. Urol Res Pract. 2023;49(3):198–204. doi:10.5152/tud.2023.22264
  59. Corrales M, Madden A, Traxer O. Editorial letter to: Incidence of ureteric strictures following ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy: Holmium:YAG versus thulium fiber laser. Urol Res Pract. 2024;50(1):68–69. doi:10.5152/tud.2024.23204
  60. Peng Y, Liu M, Ming S, et al. Safety of a novel thulium fiber laser for lithotripsy: an in vitro study on the thermal effect and its impact factor. J Endourol. 2020;34(1):88–92. doi:10.1089/end.2019.0426
  61. Hu K, Hou Z, Huang Y, Li X, Li X, Yang L. Recent development and future application of biodegradable ureteral stents. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024;12:1373130. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2024.1373130
  62. Aminsharifi A, Irani D, Tayebi S, Jafari Kafash T, Shabanian T, Parsaei H. Predicting the postoperative outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy with machine learning system: software validation and comparative analysis with Guy's Stone Score and the CROES nomogram. J Endourol. 2020;34:692–699. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0475
  63. Solakhan M, Ulusam Seckiner S, Seckiner I. A neural network-based algorithm for predicting the spontaneous passage of ureteral stones. Urolithiasis. 2020;48:527–532. doi:10.1007/s00240-019-01167-5
  64. Weizer AZ, Auge BK, Silverstein AD, Delvecchio FC, Brizuela RM, Dahm P, Pietrow PK, Lewis BR, Albala DM, Preminger GM. Routine postoperative imaging is important after ureteroscopic stone manipulation. J Urol. 2002;168(1):46–50. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64830-6
  65. Karod JW, Danella J, Mowad JJ. Routine radiologic surveillance for obstruction is not required in asymptomatic patients after ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 1999;13(6):433–437. doi:10.1089/end.1999.13.433
  66. Bugg CE Jr, El-Galley R, Kenney PJ, Burns JR. Follow-up functional radiographic studies are not mandatory for all patients after ureteroscopy. Urology. 2002;59:662–667. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01508-X
  67. Adiyat KT, Meuleners R, Monga M. Selective postoperative imaging after ureteroscopy. Urology. 2009;73(3):490–493. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.09.064

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.