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
  • [41] 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, Ahmed
    Zaghloul, Talaat
    Mamdoh, Hussein
    Mousa, Ayman
    Gameel, Tarek
    ElTatawy, Hasan
    Ragab, Maged
    Abo-Elenein, Mohamed
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2024, 211 (05): : E481 - E481
  • [42] Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for management of large upper third ureteral stones
    Lee, YH
    Tsai, JY
    Jiaan, BP
    Wu, T
    Yu, CC
    UROLOGY, 2006, 67 (03) : 480 - 484
  • [43] The Efficacy of Ultra-thin Semi-rigid Ureteroscopy with Holmium Laser Lithotripsy in Pediatric Ureteral Stones: A Single-center Experience
    Topaktas, Ramazan
    Aydin, Cemil
    Altin, Selcuk
    Akkoc, Ali
    Aydin, Zeynep B.
    Urkmez, Ahmet
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2019, 11 (08)
  • [44] Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones
    Wu, CF
    Shee, JJ
    Lin, WY
    Lin, CL
    Chen, CS
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 172 (05): : 1899 - 1902
  • [45] FURS VS SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPSY FOR TREATMENT OF (1-2) CM RENAL STONES IN CHILDREN WITH A SOLITARY KIDNEY: A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED STUDY
    Gamal, Wael
    Mmdouh, Ahmed
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 197 (04): : E578 - E578
  • [46] EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPSY (ESWL) FOR LARGE PANCREATIC DUCT STONES: A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
    Aguon, Paul A. Muna
    Fung, Brian M.
    Rawal, Nina
    Yost, Kelli Kosako
    Suchartlikitwong, Sakolwan
    Haddad, Nael
    Pradhan, Faruq
    Al-Qaisi, Mohanad T.
    Mounzer, Rawad
    Pitea, Teodor C.
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2022, 95 (06) : AB345 - AB345
  • [47] Ureteroscopy and Laser Lithotripsy for Large (≥2 cm) Upper Tract Urinary Stones in Pediatric Patients: Outcomes from a Pediatric Endourology Referral Center
    Jahrreiss, Victoria
    Griffin, Stephen
    Somani, Bhaskar
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2025,
  • [48] Editorial Comment: Flexible Ureterorenoscopy Versus Shockwave Lithotripsy for Kidney Stones ≤ 2 cm: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Danilovic, Alexandre
    INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2022, 48 (06): : 992 - 993
  • [49] A Prospective, Multi-Institutional Study of Flexible Ureteroscopy for Proximal Ureteral Stones Smaller than 2 cm
    Hyams, Elias S.
    Monga, Manoj
    Pearle, Margaret S.
    Antonelli, Jodi A.
    Semins, Michelle J.
    Assimos, Dean G.
    Lingeman, James E.
    Pais, Vernon M., Jr.
    Preminger, Glenn M.
    Lipkin, Michael E.
    Eisner, Brian H.
    Shah, Ojas
    Sur, Roger L.
    Mufarrij, Patrick W.
    Matlagak, Brian R.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 193 (01): : 165 - 169
  • [50] Ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the Trendelenburg position for extracting obstructive upper ureteral obstruction stones: a prospective, randomized, comparative trial
    Zhou, Rongsheng
    Han, Conghui
    Hao, Lin
    Chen, Bo
    Zang, Guanghui
    Fan, Tao
    Zhou, Jiahe
    Dong, Yang
    Ma, Weiming
    Pang, Kun
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 52 (04) : 291 - 295