Comparison between Rigid Ureteroscopic Stone Removal (URS) and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) for Large (>10mm) Upper Ureteral Stones.
10.4111/kju.2006.47.9.933
- Author:
Ji Hoon KIM
1
;
Luck Hee SUNG
;
Choong Hee NOH
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. uroman1@yahoo.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Ureteral calculi;
Ureteroscopes;
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy
- MeSH:
Compliance;
Cost-Benefit Analysis;
Humans;
Lithotripsy*;
Radiography;
Recurrence;
Shock*;
Ureter*;
Ureteral Calculi;
Ureteroscopes
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2006;47(9):933-937
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and compliance of ureteroscopic stone removal (URS) patients who were treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for large (>10mm) proximal ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: We reviewed 123 patients who were treated for upper ureteral stones (>10mm) between January 2000 and March 2005. URS and ESWL were performed in 51 and 72 patients, respectively. Success was defined as the patients achieving a stone-free status on radiography at 1 month after treatment. We analyzed the success rates of stone removal, the reasons for failure and the complication rates of each procedure. Results: The overall success rate of URS was 90.2%. For the ESWL treatments, the overall success rates after the first, second, third and more sessions were 47.2%, 61.1%, 76.4% and 81.9%, respectively. Notably, the stone free rate of the URS group was better than that of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd session ESWL group (p<0.05). The complication rate of URS was 24.0% and that of ESWL was 22.2%; the difference was not statistically significant (p<0.05). Conclusions: In this study, URS achieved an excellent stone free rate and a similar complication rate to that of ESWL for treating large (>10mm) upper ureteral calculi. Thus, this procedure should be considered as first line therapy for large (>10mm) upper ureteral stones. In addition, for the proper selection of patients for ESWL and URS, analysis of the cost effectiveness, compliance and recurrence rates of the two groups should be done in the future.
