Literature DB >> 15008569

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and intracorporeal lithotripsy for proximal ureteric calculi--a comparative assessment of efficacy and safety.

Y K Fong1, S H Ho, O H Peh, F C Ng, P H C Lim, P L C Quek, K K Ng.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the treatment modality of choice of many urologists for proximal ureteric calculi. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of ESWL versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for the treatment of this group of stones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 1999 and October 2000, 50 patients had ESWL and another 51 patients underwent ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for proximal ureteric calculi. The two groups were similar in age, sex ratio and stone size. ESWL was performed with the Dornier Compact lithotriptor whereas holmium laser lithotripsy was performed via retrograde ureteric access with a Wolf 7.5 Fr semirigid ureteroscope.
RESULTS: Ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy was significantly better in terms of the mean procedure time (56 min in ESWL; 25 min in ureteroscopy; P < 0.001) and the 1-month stone free rate (50% in ESWL; 80% in ureteroscopy; P = 0.001). The 3-month stone free rate was also higher for ureteroscopy (78% in ESWL; 90% in ureteroscopy) but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.09). Minor complications of steinstrasse (6%) occurred in ESWL and proximal stone migration (8%) occurred during ureteroscopy.
CONCLUSION: Ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy is a viable and safe alternative to ESWL for the management of proximal ureteric calculi.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15008569

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Acad Med Singapore        ISSN: 0304-4602            Impact factor:   2.473


  6 in total

1.  [Ureterorenoscopy: yesterday, today, tomorrow].

Authors:  T Knoll; P Alken
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Ureteral wall thickness at the impacted ureteral stone site: a critical predictor for success rates after SWL.

Authors:  Kemal Sarica; Alper Kafkasli; Özgür Yazici; Ali Cihangir Çetinel; Mehmet Kutlu Demirkol; Murat Tuncer; Cahit Şahin; Bilal Eryildirim
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Comparative analysis of upper ureteral stones (> 15 mm) treated with retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy and ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy.

Authors:  YunYan Wang; JianQuan Hou; DuanGai Wen; Jun OuYang; JunSong Meng; HaiJun Zhuang
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  Study of ureteral and renal morphometry on the outcome of ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy: The critical role of maximum ureteral wall thickness at the site of ureteral stone impaction.

Authors:  Amit Kumar Mishra; Santosh Kumar; Lalgudi Narayan Dorairajan; Ramanitharan Manikandan; G Ramkumar; K S Sreerag; Jayesh Kumar Mittal
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2020-06-10

5.  Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy.

Authors:  Mostafa Khalil
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2013-04

6.  Treatment of ureteral stones: A prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of Ho:YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripsy.

Authors:  Robab Maghsoudi; Mohsen Amjadi; Davood Norizadeh; Hassan Hassanzadeh
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2008-07
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.