PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with radiopaque and radiolucent ureteral calculi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between September 2001 and August 2002, a total of 113 consecutive patients with ureteral calculi (58 radiopaque [Group 1], 55 radiolucent [Group 2]) were treated with a Multimed 2001 trade mark lithotripter under fluoroscopic monitoring. Localization of radiolucent stones was achieved after a bolus injection of contrast medium 1 mL/kg, the shockwaves being focused just below the end of contrast column. All patients were treated on an outpatient basis under analgesia and light sedation if required. The mean follow-up was 14 (range 6-23) months. Patients were reevaluated by some combination of plain films, ultrasound scanning, and intravenous urography 3 months after the treatment. Groups were compared with ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U tests. A P value <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in any parameter between groups. At 3 months, the success rate (stone-free status) was 87.9% in Group 1 and 89% in Group 2 (P = 0.848). Double-J catheter replacement was needed for three patients in Group 1 and for two patients in Group 2 (P = 0.693). Two patients from Group 1 and three from Group 2 underwent intracorporeal lithotripsy with ureterorenoscopy (P = 0.606). No adverse reactions to contrast medium occurred in Group 2. CONCLUSION: Patients with radiolucent ureteral calculi can be treated efficiently with SWL by contrast medium injection if ultrasonic localization is not possible.
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with radiopaque and radiolucent ureteral calculi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between September 2001 and August 2002, a total of 113 consecutive patients with ureteral calculi (58 radiopaque [Group 1], 55 radiolucent [Group 2]) were treated with a Multimed 2001 trade mark lithotripter under fluoroscopic monitoring. Localization of radiolucent stones was achieved after a bolus injection of contrast medium 1 mL/kg, the shockwaves being focused just below the end of contrast column. All patients were treated on an outpatient basis under analgesia and light sedation if required. The mean follow-up was 14 (range 6-23) months. Patients were reevaluated by some combination of plain films, ultrasound scanning, and intravenous urography 3 months after the treatment. Groups were compared with ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U tests. A P value <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in any parameter between groups. At 3 months, the success rate (stone-free status) was 87.9% in Group 1 and 89% in Group 2 (P = 0.848). Double-J catheter replacement was needed for three patients in Group 1 and for two patients in Group 2 (P = 0.693). Two patients from Group 1 and three from Group 2 underwent intracorporeal lithotripsy with ureterorenoscopy (P = 0.606). No adverse reactions to contrast medium occurred in Group 2. CONCLUSION:Patients with radiolucent ureteral calculi can be treated efficiently with SWL by contrast medium injection if ultrasonic localization is not possible.