【Abstract】 Objective To analyze the pros and cons of ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL), microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL), and retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy (RLU) in the treatment of incarcerated ureteral calculi With choice. Methods 138 patients with incarcerated ureteral calculi during the period from March 2016 to May 1818 in the author's hospital were analyzed. The URL treatment was classified as group A, MPCNL was treated as group B, and RLU was classified as group C. The time spent on surgery, the length of hospital stay, the failure rate of surgery, the rate of stone removal at 3 days and 1 month after surgery, and the rate of postoperative ESEL treatment were recorded. The incidence of complications and the renal function before and after treatment (24h) 5HT levels of pain media, and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were observed. Results The operation time of group 1A was the shortest, followed by group B and group C. The hospitalization time of group A was the shortest, followed by group C and group B. 2 The 3d and 1 month stone removal rate from high to low was C group, B group and A group. The treatment rate of ESWL in group A was higher than that in group B and C, P＜005. The incidence of complications in group 3C was lower than that in group A and group B, P＜005. 4 After treatment, the three groups of NGAL increased, the highest in group A, followed by group B, group C, P＜005. The 5HT level and VAS score of pain media in group A and group C were lower than those in group B, P＜005. Conclusion URL, MPCNL and RLU can be used for the treatment of upper segment of incarcerated ureteral calculi. MPCNL is more suitable for patients with massive calculi, hydronephrosis and stones near the renal pelvis. High efficiency of ULR and low removal rate of calculi; RLU is efficient and less traumatic, and can be remedied by URL.