OBJECTIVES: To conduct a prospective and randomized trial to compare the efficiency quotient and cost-effectiveness index of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) for the treatment of large upper third ureteral stones. METHODS: A total of 35 male patients and 7 female patients with a solitary, radiopaque upper ureteral stone, 15 mm or more in diameter, who underwent SWL or URSL were enrolled in this study. The mean patient age was 53.1 +/- 14.5 years. The endpoint of the study was for the patient to be stone free or to have insignificant residual stone (3 mm or less) within the kidney. RESULTS: The mean stone length +/- SD was 17.9 +/- 3.9 cm in the SWL group and 18.5 +/- 2.9 cm in the URSL group (P > 0.05). The efficiency quotient for SWL and URSL was 0.61 and 0.63, respectively. The cost-effectiveness index, treatment time, pain score, and hospital stay were greater in the URSL group. However, the degree of hydronephrosis significantly influenced the success rate of SWL. All patients with severe hydronephrosis in the SWL group needed auxiliary surgical procedures to become stone free. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency quotients of SWL and URSL were comparable in the treatment of large upper third ureteral stones. However, SWL should not be recommended as the first-line treatment option for the management of upper third ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm with severe hydronephrosis. Understanding the cost-effectiveness, success rate, pain score, and patient satisfaction score for the two different approaches constitutes the indispensable requisites for choosing the optimal first-line therapeutic strategy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a prospective and randomized trial to compare the efficiency quotient and cost-effectiveness index of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) for the treatment of large upper third ureteral stones. METHODS: A total of 35 male patients and 7 female patients with a solitary, radiopaque upper ureteral stone, 15 mm or more in diameter, who underwent SWL or URSL were enrolled in this study. The mean patient age was 53.1 +/- 14.5 years. The endpoint of the study was for the patient to be stone free or to have insignificant residual stone (3 mm or less) within the kidney. RESULTS: The mean stone length +/- SD was 17.9 +/- 3.9 cm in the SWL group and 18.5 +/- 2.9 cm in the URSL group (P > 0.05). The efficiency quotient for SWL and URSL was 0.61 and 0.63, respectively. The cost-effectiveness index, treatment time, pain score, and hospital stay were greater in the URSL group. However, the degree of hydronephrosis significantly influenced the success rate of SWL. All patients with severe hydronephrosis in the SWL group needed auxiliary surgical procedures to become stone free. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency quotients of SWL and URSL were comparable in the treatment of large upper third ureteral stones. However, SWL should not be recommended as the first-line treatment option for the management of upper third ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm with severe hydronephrosis. Understanding the cost-effectiveness, success rate, pain score, and patient satisfaction score for the two different approaches constitutes the indispensable requisites for choosing the optimal first-line therapeutic strategy.