The effect of stone size on the results of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithoiripsy in the management of upper ureteric stones

被引:0
作者
El-Abd, Ahmed S. [1 ]
Tawfeek, Ahmed M. [1 ]
El-Abd, Shawky A. [1 ]
Gameel, Tarik A. [1 ]
El-Tatawy, Hasan H. [1 ]
El-Sabaa, Magdy A. [1 ]
Soliman, Mohamed G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Tanta Univ, Fac Med, Urol Dept, Tanta, Egypt
关键词
Stones; extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy; ureteroscopy; WAVE LITHOTRIPSY; IN-SITU; CALCULI; EFFICACY; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1080/2090598X.2021.1996820
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
Objectives: To evaluate the role of stone size on the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) monotherapy vs ureteroscopy (URS) for managing upper ureteric stones. Patients and methods: The study design was a randomised prospective study of a total cohort of 180 patients with upper ureteric single stones of 0.5-1.5 cm. Half of the patients were managed by ESWL monotherapy, while the other half underwent URS with stone fragmentation using an ultrasound lithotripter (URSL). The success rate, re-treatment rate, auxiliary procedure (AP) rate, efficacy quotient, and complications were compared between the two groups. Results: After single URSL and ESWL procedures 70/90 (77.8%) and 35/90 (38.9%) of the stones were successfully cleared, respectively (P < 0.001). The re-treatment rate after ESWL was significantly higher than in the URSL group (38.9% vs 11.1%, P < 0.001). Requiring an AP was not significantly different following ESWL (22.2%) and URSL (24.4%) treatment. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) at 3 months was significantly superior in the URSL group (88.9% vs 77.8%); however, both procedures had excellent results with no significant difference for stones of <1 cm (95.5% vs 92.9%, P > 0.05), compared to better results following URSL for stones of >1 cm (82.6% vs 64.6%, P < 0.05). Conclusion: Our present study supports that ESWL is recommended as a first-line non-invasive monotherapy for upper ureteric opaque stones of <1 cm, while URSL is recommended as a first-line treatment for stones of >1 cm. The results for URSL were superior with lower a re-treatment rate, rapid stone clearance in a very short time, and less radiation exposure. Therefore, stone size is an important factor for the final decision of the initial management of upper ureteric stones because it has a direct relation to the efficacy of ESWL, but it has no effect on the results of URSL.
引用
收藏
页码:30 / 35
页数:6
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Flexible Ureteroscopy for the Management of Upper Tract Urinary Stones in Children
    Freton, Lucas
    Peyronnet, Benoit
    Arnaud, Alexis
    Tondut, Lauranne
    Hascoet, Juliette
    Pradere, Benjamin
    Verhoest, Gregory
    Habonimana, Edouard
    Azzis, Olivier
    Fremond, Benjamin
    Bensalah, Karim
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2017, 31 (01) : 1 - 6
  • [2] Semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large upper ureteral stones: a meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Torricelli, Fabio C. M.
    Monga, Manoj
    Marchini, Giovanni S.
    Srougi, Miguel
    Nahas, William C.
    Mazzucchi, Eduardo
    INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2016, 42 (04): : 645 - 654
  • [3] Comparison of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureterorenoscopic Holmium Laser lithotripsy in proximal ureteric stone management
    Jalbani, Malik Hussain
    Patujo, Yassar Husain
    Shaikh, Aamir Ali
    Shaikh, Ahmed Bux
    Meerani, Azizullah
    Abbassi, Sajid Ali
    Shaikh, Nisar Ahmed
    RAWAL MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2019, 44 (01): : 67 - 70
  • [4] Semen quality after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for the management of lower ureteric stones: a review of the literature
    Gulur, Dev Mohan
    Philip, Joe
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2011, 108 (08) : 1321 - 1323
  • [5] Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT
    Dasgupta, Ranan
    Cameron, Sarah
    Aucott, Lorna
    MacLennan, Graeme
    Kilonzo, Mary M.
    Lam, Thomas B. L.
    Thomas, Ruth
    Norrie, John
    McDonald, Alison
    Anson, Ken
    N'Dow, James
    Burgess, Neil
    Clark, Charles T.
    Keeley, Francis X.
    MacLennan, Sara J.
    Starr, Kath
    McClinton, Samuel
    HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2022, 26 (19) : 1 - 100
  • [6] Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi
    Aboumarzouk, Omar M.
    Kata, Slawomir G.
    Keeley, Francis X.
    McClinton, Samuel
    Nabi, Ghulam
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2012, (05):
  • [7] Prospective Evaluation of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy in Renal and Upper Ureteric Stone Treatment: Clinical Assessment and Results
    Singh, Nimisha
    Agarwal, Shikhar
    Sarpal, Rajeev
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 16 (05)
  • [8] Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi
    Aboumarzouk, Omar M.
    Kata, Slawomir G.
    Keeley, Francis X.
    Nabi, Ghulam
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2011, (12):
  • [9] EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPSY VERSUS LASER LITHOTRIPSY BY SEMIRIGID URETEROSCOPE IN TREATMENT OF UPPER URETERAL STONES
    Mehrabi, Sadrollah
    Rahmani, Ali
    Mehrabi, Amir
    Motlagh, Aminhossaini
    ACTA MEDICA MEDITERRANEA, 2016, 32 : 2075 - 2078
  • [10] Comparison of Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy with Ureteroscopic Lasertripsy for Management of Proximal Ureteral Stones
    Mustafa, Ghulam
    Mahar, Naveed Ahmed
    Qureshi, Harris Hassan
    Mustafa, Mohsan
    Fayaz, Muhammad
    Hassan, Asad Shahzad
    JCPSP-JOURNAL OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS PAKISTAN, 2024, 34 (01): : 101 - 104