Translation: Igor Arkadyevich Shaderkin, Victoria Anatolyevna Shaderkina, urologists of the Severskaya Central Regional Hospital The presented work of the group of authors Brito AH, Mitre AI, Srougi M from the Division of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil (arturbrito@uol.com.br) evaluates ureteroscopic treatment of impacted ureteral stones using pneumatic lithotripsy. They published their results in the May-June 2006 issue of the journal International Braz J Urol (Int Braz J Urol. 2006 May-Jun;32(3):295-9.). Methods. From March 1997 to May 2002, 42 patients with impacted ureteral stones were treated with ureteroscopic retrograde pneumatic lithotripsy. Of the 42 patients, 28 were women and 14 were men. The size of the stones varied significantly, from 5 mm to 20 mm. In 21 cases, the stones were located in the distal ureter, in 12 cases in the middle third, and in 9 cases in the proximal ureter. Results. With a stone located in the distal ureter, only 1 patient (4.7%) experienced a perforation with subsequent development of ureteral stricture. With a stone localized in the middle third of the ureter, there were 2 perforations and 1 stricture (8.3%), and with a stone localized in the proximal ureter, 5 perforations occurred with the development of 4 strictures (44%). Of the 34 patients without ureteral perforation, only one developed ureteral stricture (2.9%). Of the 8 patients with ureteral perforation, 6 developed strictures. The overall rate of stricture development during treatment of impacted ureteral stones was 14.2%. Conclusion. Ureteroscopic treatment of impacted ureteral stones is associated with a high rate of ureteral perforations and stricture development. Ureteroscopy of proximal ureteral stones is associated with a higher risk of perforations and strictures than ureteroscopy of the middle and distal thirds of the ureter. Ureteral perforation at the site of stone standing is a factor in the subsequent development of ureteral stricture at this site. The age of patients in the stented group ranged from 14 to 70 years (mean 39.35 ± 13.36), the size of the stones ranged between 6-16 mm (mean 9.9 ± 3.2 mm). Of the 40 patients, 34 were men and 6 women. 25 stones were in the right ureter and 15 in the left. A 100% success rate was observed in the nonstented group and in 39 of 40 patients in the stented group. These two groups were compared for the need for postoperative analgesia and hospital stay, and the difference was found to be significant. In contrast, the duration of surgery in these two groups differed insignificantly. Conclusion: Stent placement should not be used routinely when removing ureteral stones using ureteroscopy. Postoperative ureteral stenting may be used in cases of ureteral injury, large stones, or prolonged operative time. The absence of a stent reduces the need for postoperative analgesia and hospital stay.