[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
October 25, 1924


Author Affiliations

Rochester, Minn.
From the Section on Urology, Mayo Clinic.

JAMA. 1924;83(17):1331. doi:10.1001/jama.1924.26610170001016a

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


Efforts to dislodge and recover ureteral stones by the manipulation of multiple ureteral catheters, dilators or sounds have been surprisingly successful, and major surgical procedures have decreased accordingly. It is generally agreed, however, that in a certain number of cases the stone will be too large to pass, and an initial operation will be indicated. The opinion among urologists that attempts should not be made to manipulate certain stones is due to the fact that occasionally a patient develops periurethritis or pyelonephritis afterward, becomes acutely ill, and requires nephrectomy. In such a case the removal of the badly infected kidney might have been avoided if surgical measures for the removal of the ureteral stone had been undertaken at the beginning. Even with this problem solved, there still remains the problem of the type of operation to be employed for removal of the stone. If nephrectomy is not required and the

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview