Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Proximal Ureteric Calculus of 10 to 20 mm in Size: A single centre experience
https://doi.org/10.24884/0042-4625-2023-182-6-27-31
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. To investigate the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (URS) treatment of upper ureteric stones between 10 to 20 mm in size. From January 2020 to January 2023, 75 patients were treated for proximal ureteric calculus between using ESWL (n=40) & URS (n=35).
METHODS AND MATERIALS. Both groups were compared regarding operative time, success rate and complications who underwent treatment for proximal ureteric calculus of 10–20 mm in diameter. URS group was observed to have higher stone-free rate, compared to the ESWL group, 31 (88.6 %) vs 20 patients (50.0 %) (p<0.001).
RESULTS. URS treatment had a higher complication rate compared to the ESWL, 9 (25.7 %) vs 3(7.5 %) ;( p=0.032). Procedure time for URS was longer, compared to the ESWL, median (IQR) for URS vs ESWL were 78.0 (65.0, 100.0) vs 62.0 (48.0, 67.0) minutes; (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION. We conclude that URS has a better stone-free rate in comparison to a single session of ESWL for upper ureteral calculus of 10–20 mm, with higher complication rates such as post-operative fever and pain.
About the Authors
M. Pushpanathan
Department of Urology, Hospital Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah, University Putra Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Mugialan Pushpanathan
O. A. Fahmy
Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Putra Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Omar Ahmed Fahmy Ahmed
Level 4, Block B, FPSK 43400 UPM Serdang
CKS Lee
Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Putra Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Christoper Lee Kheng Siang
M. G. Khairul-Asri
Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Putra Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Khairul Asri Mohd Ghani, Urology, Robotic Surgery
References
1. Liu Y., Chen Y., Liao B. et al. Epidemiology of urolithiasis in Asia // Asian J Urol. 2018;5(4):205–214.
2. Coll D. M., Varanelli M. J., Smith R. C. Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT // AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178(1):101‒3. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.178.1.1780101.
3. Bozkurt Y., Sancaktutar A. A., Bostancı Y. et al. Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic stone extraction in the treatment of ureteral stones // Eur J Gen Med. 2010; 7(1):29‒34.
4. Youssef R. F., EL-Nahas A. R., El-Assmy A. M. et al. Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi (<20 mm): a comparative matched-pair study // Urology. 2009;73:1184‒7.
5. Tauber V., Wohlmuth M., Hochmuth A. et al. Efficacy Management of urolithiasis: flexible ureteroscopy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy // Urol Int. 2015;95:324‒328. DOI: 10.1159/000439356.
6. Iqbal N., Malik Y., Nadeem U. et al. Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience // Turk J Urol. 2018;44(3):221‒227. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2018.41848. PMID: 29733796; PMCID: PMC5937642.
7. Salem H. K. A prospective randomized study comparing shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi // Urology. 2009;74(6):1216‒21. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.076. PMID: 19815264.
8. Kumar A., Nanda B., Kumar N. et al. A prospective randomized comparison between shockwave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones <2 cm: a single center experience // J Endourol. 2015;29(1):47‒51. DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0493. PMID: 23914770.
9. Khalil M. Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy // Urol Ann. 2013;5:88‒92.
10. Joshi H. N., Shrestha B., Karmacharya R. M. et al. Management of proximal ureteric stones: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) versus Ureterorenoscopic Lithotripsy (URSL) // Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2017;15(60):343‒346. PMID: 30580354.
11. Cui X., Ji F., Yan H. et al. Comparison between Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis // Urology. 2015;85(40):748‒756.
12. Wang P., Zhan, Y., Li, J. et al. Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic // World J Urol. 2023;41:797–803. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04307-0.
13. Kazan H. O., Cakici M. C., Efiloglu O. et al. Clinical characteristics of postoperative febrile urinary tract infections after ureteroscopic lithotripsy in diabetics: Impact of glycemic control // Arch Esp Urol. 2020; 73(7):634‒642. (In English, Spanish). PMID: 32886078.
14. Mckay A., Somani B. K., Pietropaolo A. et al. Comparison of primary and delayed ureteroscopy for ureteric stones: a prospective nonrandomized comparative study // Urol Int. 2021;105(1‒2):90‒94. DOI: 10.1159/000510213. PMID: 32894854.
15. Lumma P. P., Schneider P., Strauss A. et al. Impact of ureteral stenting prior to ureterorenoscopy on stone-free rates and complications // World J Urol. 2013;31(4):855‒9. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-011-0789-6. PMID: 22037634; PMCID: PMC3732763.
16. Bromwich E. J., Lockyer R., Keoghane S. R. Day-case rigid and flexible ureteroscopy // Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89(5):526‒8. DOI: 10.1308/003588407X187676. PMID: 17688729; PMCID: PMC2048604.
17. Wu Z. H., Wang Y. Z., Liu T. Z. et al. Comparison of vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for impacted upper ureteral stones // World J Urol. 2022;40:2347–2352. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04075-3.
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Pushpanathan M., Fahmy O.A., Lee C., Khairul-Asri M.G. Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Proximal Ureteric Calculus of 10 to 20 mm in Size: A single centre experience. Grekov's Bulletin of Surgery. 2023;182(6):27-31. https://doi.org/10.24884/0042-4625-2023-182-6-27-31
Views:
334
Email this article 