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] A Comparison of Treatment Modalities for Renal Calculi Between 100 and 300 mm2: Are Shockwave Lithotripsy, Ureteroscopy, and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Equivalent?
    Wiesenthal, Joshua D.
    Ghiculete, Daniela
    Honey, R. John D'A.
    Pace, Kenneth T.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2011, 25 (03) : 481 - 485
  • [32] How Effective Is Retrograde Semirigid and Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for the Treatment of Large Ureteral Stones Equal of or Greater than 15 mm? Results from a Single Center
    Kozyrakis, Diomidis G.
    Kratiras, Zisis K.
    Perikleous, Stefanos K.
    Zarkadas, Anastasios P.
    Chatzistamoy, Styliani-Elissavet E.
    Karagiannis, Dimitrios K.
    Solinis, Ioannis T.
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2019, 103 (01) : 74 - 80
  • [33] Miniature semi-rigid ureteroscopy with holmium-yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser vs shockwave lithotripsy in the management of upper urinary tract stones &gt;1 cm in children
    Omran, Mohamed
    Sakr, Ahmed
    Desoky, Esam A. E.
    Ali, Maged M.
    Abdalla, Mohamed M. H.
    ARAB JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 18 (02) : 106 - 111
  • [34] Comparison of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, retrograde flexible ureteroscopy, and mini-percutaneous antegrade flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large (≥ 15 mm) impacted proximal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized trial
    Zoeir, Ahmed
    Zaghloul, Talaat
    Gameel, Tarek
    Mousa, Ayman
    El Tatawy, Hasan
    Ragab, Maged
    Abo-El Enein, Mohammed
    Mamdoh, Hussein
    UROLITHIASIS, 2024, 52 (01)
  • [35] A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones
    Bozzini, G.
    Verze, P.
    Arcaniolo, D.
    Dal Piaz, O.
    Buffi, N. M.
    Guazzoni, G.
    Provenzano, M.
    Osmolorskij, B.
    Sanguedolce, F.
    Montanari, E.
    Macchione, N.
    Pummer, K.
    Mirone, V.
    De Sio, M.
    Taverna, G.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 35 (12) : 1967 - 1975
  • [36] External physical vibration lithecbole facilitating the expulsion of upper ureteric stones 1.0-2.0 cm after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial
    Tao, Rong-zhen
    Tang, Qing-lai
    Zhou, Shuang
    Jia, Chun-ping
    Lv, Jian-lin
    UROLITHIASIS, 2020, 48 (01) : 71 - 77
  • [37] A comparison of standard PCNL and staged retrograde FURS in pelvis stones over 2 cm in diameter: a prospective randomized study
    Karakoyunlu, Nihat
    Goktug, Goksel
    Sener, Nevzat Can
    Zengin, Kursad
    Nalbant, Ismail
    Ozturk, Ufuk
    Ozok, Ugur
    Imamoglu, Abdurrahim
    UROLITHIASIS, 2015, 43 (03) : 283 - 287
  • [38] Comparative efficacy between retrograde intrarenal surgery with vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 1-2 cm infectious upper ureteral stones: a prospective, randomized controlled study
    Tang, Qing-lai
    Liang, Ping
    Ding, Ye-fei
    Zhou, Xing-zhu
    Tao, Rong-zhen
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2023, 10
  • [39] Microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of 1-2 cm high hardness single upper ureteral stones: a propensity score-matched study
    Wang, Ganlin
    Pan, Tingan
    Zhou, Yijun
    Dai, Xiaonong
    Zhang, Zhenglin
    Li, Wenjian
    UROLITHIASIS, 2024, 52 (01)
  • [40] Comparison between tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteral calculi larger than 1 cm
    Chou, Chu-Min
    Wang, Chung-Jing
    Jou, Yeong-Chin
    Cheng, Ming-Chin
    Shen, Cheng-Huang
    Lin, Chang-Te
    FORMOSAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2023, 56 (06) : 189 - 192