OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with objective outcomes after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic surgery (URS) for ureteral calculi (UC). METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 160 consecutive patients who underwent SWL (n = 65) or URS (n = 95) for a single radiopaque UC ranging from 4 to 15 mm. For patients who underwent URS, a 6-Fr double-J stent was routinely placed for 2 weeks after surgery. To examine PRO, we used a self-administered nonvalidated questionnaire evaluating overall satisfaction and PRO in four domains (pain, hematuria, voiding symptom, and time to return to routine activity) and willingness to undergo the treatment procedure again. Propensity-score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounding by discrepancy of pretreatment parameters between groups. Stone-free rates (SFRs) and complications were also compared. RESULTS: SFRs after the first, second, and third sessions of SWL were 61.5, 81.0, and 93.5%, respectively. SFR after URS was 100%, which was significantly better than SFRs for third-session SWL (p = 0.023). Complications were comparable. By propensity-score matching analysis, overall satisfaction was similar between groups, whereas PRO for voiding symptom and time to return to routine activity were significantly better in the SWL group (all p < 0.05). The two groups were not different in willingness to undergo the same procedure again. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significantly higher SFR after URS for UC, overall patient satisfaction was comparable after SWL and URS, meanwhile PRO of the SWL group was better than URS for voiding symptom and time to return to routine activity. In addition of objective treatment outcomes, PROs should be considered in counseling treatment methods for UC.
OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with objective outcomes after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic surgery (URS) for ureteral calculi (UC). METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 160 consecutive patients who underwent SWL (n = 65) or URS (n = 95) for a single radiopaque UC ranging from 4 to 15 mm. For patients who underwent URS, a 6-Fr double-J stent was routinely placed for 2 weeks after surgery. To examine PRO, we used a self-administered nonvalidated questionnaire evaluating overall satisfaction and PRO in four domains (pain, hematuria, voiding symptom, and time to return to routine activity) and willingness to undergo the treatment procedure again. Propensity-score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounding by discrepancy of pretreatment parameters between groups. Stone-free rates (SFRs) and complications were also compared. RESULTS: SFRs after the first, second, and third sessions of SWL were 61.5, 81.0, and 93.5%, respectively. SFR after URS was 100%, which was significantly better than SFRs for third-session SWL (p = 0.023). Complications were comparable. By propensity-score matching analysis, overall satisfaction was similar between groups, whereas PRO for voiding symptom and time to return to routine activity were significantly better in the SWL group (all p < 0.05). The two groups were not different in willingness to undergo the same procedure again. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significantly higher SFR after URS for UC, overall patient satisfaction was comparable after SWL and URS, meanwhile PRO of the SWL group was better than URS for voiding symptom and time to return to routine activity. In addition of objective treatment outcomes, PROs should be considered in counseling treatment methods for UC.
Authors: Jason Y Lee; Sero Andonian; Naeem Bhojani; Jennifer Bjazevic; Ben H Chew; Shubha De; Hazem Elmansy; Andrea G Lantz-Powers; Kenneth T Pace; Trevor D Schuler; Rajiv K Singal; Peter Wang; Michael Ordon Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Jason Y Lee; Sero Andonian; Naeem Bhojani; Jennifer Bjazevic; Ben H Chew; Shubha De; Hazem Elmansy; Andrea G Lantz-Powers; Kenneth T Pace; Trevor D Schuler; Rajiv K Singal; Peter Wang; Michael Ordon Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Doo Yong Chung; Kang Su Cho; Dae Hun Lee; Jang Hee Han; Dong Hyuk Kang; Hae Do Jung; Jong Kyou Kown; Won Sik Ham; Young Deuk Choi; Joo Yong Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 3.240