Aims: Today, we have technology to break up a ureter stone in ureter as well as in renal pelvis during ureterorenoscopic procedures. In the past, when this option was not available, the surgeons improved several techniques and antiretropulsion devices in order not to let the stone migrate through renal pelvis. However, we still do not know whether it is advantageous to dust a stone in ureter where it is impacted or in a wider area such as renal pelvis. This study was carried out to clarify whether it is advantageous to breaking an upper ureter stone up where it is enclaved or in a wider area such as renal pelvis. Study Design: The data of 134 patients who underwent semirigid ureterorenoscopy (srURS) due to single and primary upper ureteral stones were included in our study and analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the development of spontaneous push-up during surgery (Group 1: non-push-up group, Group 2: push-up group). Results: Laboratory findings were changed significantly in both groups before and after surgery. However, this change was not significant between the groups. Operation times were statistically similar in both groups in contrast with the literature. Stone-free rates were significantly higher in srURS than in flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) (p<0,05). Complication rates were also found similar in this study. Conclusion: The application of srURS after fixing an upper ureter stone at its location using a Stone Cone® results in higher stone-free rates than pushing it back in order to dust it in renal pelvis. We recommend srURS supported by an antiretropulsion method as a treatment for upper ureteral stones.