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
  • [1] A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy and Semirigid Ureteroscopy for Upper Ureteral Stones >2 cm: A Single-Center Experience
    Kumar, Anup
    Vasudeva, Pawan
    Nanda, Biswajit
    Kumar, Niraj
    Jha, Sanjeev Kumar
    Singh, Harbinder
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2015, 29 (11) : 1248 - 1252
  • [2] 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
  • [3] A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Early (&lt;48 Hours of Onset of Colicky Pain) Versus Delayed Shockwave Lithotripsy for Symptomatic Upper Ureteral Calculi: A Single Center Experience
    Kumar, Anup
    Mohanty, Nayan K.
    Jain, Manoj
    Prakash, Sanjay
    Arora, Rajender P.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2010, 24 (12) : 2059 - 2066
  • [4] A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Flexible Ureterorenoscopy for Lower Caliceal Stones ≤2 cm: A Single-Center Experience
    Kumar, Anup
    Vasudeva, Pawan
    Nanda, Biswajit
    Kumar, Niraj
    Das, Manoj Kumar
    Jha, Sanjeev Kumar
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2015, 29 (05) : 575 - 579
  • [5] Prospective comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in distal ureteral stones
    Gong, Zheng
    Li, Yipeng
    Zhang, Huijing
    Pan, Chunyu
    Li, Jia
    Liu, Gang
    Bai, Song
    UROLITHIASIS, 2023, 51 (01)
  • [6] Stenting or not prior to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? Results of a prospective randomized study
    Sfoungaristos, Stavros
    Polimeros, Nikolaos
    Kavouras, Adamantios
    Perimenis, Petros
    INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2012, 44 (03) : 731 - 737
  • [7] Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy as first-line therapy for patients with single, distal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study
    Verze, Paolo
    Imbimbo, Ciro
    Cancelmo, Gennaro
    Creta, Massimiliano
    Palmieri, Alessandro
    Mangiapia, Francesco
    Buonopane, Roberto
    Mirone, Vincenzo
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2010, 106 (11) : 1748 - 1752
  • [8] Experience on semirigid ureteroscopy and pneumatic lithotripsy in children at a single center
    Yucel, Selcuk
    Akin, Yigit
    Kol, Arif
    Danisman, Ahmet
    Guntekin, Erol
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 29 (06) : 719 - 723
  • [9] Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Ureteral Stones Twelve Years of Experience with 2836 Patients at a Single Center
    Demirbas, Murat
    Samli, Murat
    Karalar, Mustafa
    Kose, Ahmet C.
    UROLOGY JOURNAL, 2012, 9 (03) : 557 - 561
  • [10] A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Semirigid Ureteroscopy for the Management of Proximal Ureteral Calculi
    Salem, Hosni K.
    UROLOGY, 2009, 74 (06) : 1216 - 1221