A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Shockwave Lithotripsy and Semirigid Ureteroscopy for Upper Ureteral Stones <2 cm: A Single Center Experience

被引:33
|
作者
Kumar, Anup [1 ,2 ]
Nanda, Biswajit
Kumar, Niraj
Kumar, Rohit
Vasudeva, Pawan
Mohanty, Nayan K.
机构
[1] Vardhman Mahaveer Med Coll, Dept Urol, New Delhi 110029, India
[2] Safdarjang Hosp, New Delhi 110029, India
关键词
WAVE LITHOTRIPSY; LASER LITHOTRIPSY; 2007; GUIDELINE; CALCULI; MANAGEMENT; EFFICACY; HOLMIUM; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1089/end.2012.0493
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background and Purpose: The best management of upper ureteral calculi is undefined. We performed a prospective randomized comparison between semirigid ureteroscopy (URS) and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for upper ureteral stones Patients and Methods: Patients with a single radiopaque upper ureteral stone <2 cm undergoing treatment between January 2010 and May 2011 in our department were included. Randomization was performed into two groups-group A: SWL performed as an outpatient procedure using an electromagnetic lithotripter (Dornier Compact Delta); group B: URS performed using an 6/7.5F semirigid ureteroscope with holmium laser intracorporeal lithotripsy. Statistical analysis was performed regarding demographic profile, success rates, retreatment rates, auxiliary procedures, and complications. Results: There were 90 patients enrolled in each group. Mean stone size: 12.3 mm in group A vs 12.5 mm in group B (P=0.52). The overall 3-month stone-free rate was (74/90) 82.2% for group A vs (78/90) 86.6% for group B (P=0.34). For stone size <10 mm, 3-month stone-free rates were (45/53) 84.9% for group A vs (43/49) 87.7% for group B (P=0.32). For 10 to 20 mm stones, 3-month stone-free rates were (29/37) 78.4% for group A vs (35/41) 85.4% for group B (P=0.12).The re-treatment rate was significantly greater in group A than group B (61.1% vs 1.1%, respectively; P<0.001). The auxiliary procedure rate was comparable in both groups (21.1% vs 17.7%; P=0.45). The complication rate was 6.6% in group A vs 11.1% in group B (P=0.21). Conclusions: Both SWL and semirigid URS are safe and highly efficacious for treating patients with proximal ureteral stones <20 mm. For stones <10 mm, SWL was safer, less invasive, and of comparable efficacy with URS. For stones between 10 and 20 mm, however, URS was more effective, with a lesser re-treatment rate.
引用
收藏
页码:47 / 51
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] COMPARISON OF PNEUMATIC AND ULTRASONIC LITHOTRITES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF URETERAL STONES WITH URETEROSCOPY: A RANDOMIZED PROSPECTIVE STUDY
    Agras, Koray
    Aldemir, Mustafa
    Ucgul, Yusuf E.
    Gurdal, Mesut
    Kayigil, Onder
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2007, 33 (04): : 462 - 467
  • [32] Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Impacted Upper Ureteral Stones: A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Stented and Non-stented Techniques
    Ghoneim, Islam A.
    El-Ghoneimy, Mohamed N.
    El-Naggar, Ashraf E.
    Hammoud, Khaled M.
    El-Gammal, Mohamed Y.
    Morsi, Ahmed A.
    UROLOGY, 2010, 75 (01) : 45 - 50
  • [33] Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy versus antegrade flexible ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones 1-2 cm, a prospective randomized multicenter study
    Gharib, Tarek Mohamed
    Abdel-Al, Ibrahim
    Elmohamady, Basheer N.
    Deif, Hazem
    Haty, Ahmed Abdelazim
    Shebl, Salah E.
    Safar, Omar
    Hassan, Gamal M.
    Haggag, Yasser M.
    Elatreisy, Adel
    UROLITHIASIS, 2024, 52 (01)
  • [34] Prospective randomized comparison between fluoroscopy-guided ureteroscopy versus ureteroscopy with real-time ultrasonography for the management of ureteral stones
    Singh, Vishwajeet
    Purkait, Bimalesh
    Sinha, Rahul Janak
    UROLOGY ANNALS, 2016, 8 (04) : 418 - 422
  • [35] Flexible Ureterorenoscopy Versus Shockwave Lithotripsy for Kidney Stones ≤2 cm: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Bosio, Andrea
    Alessandria, Eugenio
    Dalmasso, Ettore
    Agosti, Simone
    Vitiello, Federico
    Vercelli, Eugenia
    Bisconti, Alessandro
    Gontero, Paolo
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2022, 8 (06): : 1816 - 1822
  • [36] Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy
    Aboutaleb, Hamdy
    Omar, Mohamed
    Salem, Shady
    Elshazly, Mohamed
    SAGE OPEN MEDICINE, 2016, 4
  • [37] A Single Center Experience Comparing Miniperc and Shockwave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Radiopaque 1-2 cm Lower Caliceal Renal Calculi in Children: A Prospective Randomized Study
    Kumar, Anup
    Kumar, Niraj
    Vasudeva, Pawan
    Kumar, Rohit
    Jha, Sanjeev Kumar
    Singh, Harbinder
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2015, 29 (07) : 805 - 809
  • [38] Comparison of Patient Satisfaction with Treatment Outcomes between Ureteroscopy and Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Stones
    Lee, Jong-Hyun
    Woo, Seung Hyo
    Kim, Eun Tak
    Kim, Dae Kyung
    Park, Jinsung
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 51 (11) : 788 - 793
  • [39] Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater - Is this the new frontier?
    Breda, Alberto
    Ogunyemi, Oreoluwa
    Leppert, John T.
    Lam, John S.
    Schulam, Peter G.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2008, 179 (03): : 981 - 984
  • [40] Comparison of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, retrograde flexible ureteroscopy, and mini-percutaneous antegrade ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of large proximal ureteral stones (1.5-2 cm): A prospective randomized trial
    Zoeir, A.
    Zaghloul, T.
    Mamdoh, H.
    Mousa, A.
    Gameel, T.
    Eltatawy, H.
    Ragab, M.
    Abo-Elenein, M.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2024, 85 : S514 - S514