OBJECTIVE: To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) in terms of efficacy, complications, and overall efficiency in the management of proximal ureteral calculi. ESWL and URSL are the 2 most common modalities for treating ureteral stones. Previous studies and meta-analyses suggest that for stones <10 mm, ESWL is safer and of comparable efficacy compared with URSL. However, the choice between one modality over the other for the treatment of stones >10 mm is not as clear. METHODS: The literature was reviewed in the databases, and resulting reports were screened for relevance. This process yielded 10 articles, which were analyzed in terms of the initial stone-free rate (primary outcome measure) compared between the 2 treatment modalities. Pretreatment rate, operation time, auxiliary procedure rate, and complication rate constituted secondary measures in the analysis. RESULTS: A statistically higher initial stone-free rate was demonstrated for URSL compared with ESWL (odds ratio [OR] = 0.349; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.183-0.666; P = .001). ESWL showed a statistically higher retreatment rate compared with URSL (OR = 7.192; 95% CI = 4.934-10.482; P <.001). The 2 treatment modalities did not show statistically significant differences in mean operating time (OR = 10.35; 95% CI = -0.29 to 20.99; P = .056), auxiliary procedure rate (OR = 1.043; 95% CI = 0.415-2.616; P = .929), or in the complication rate (OR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.304-1.984; P = .598). CONCLUSION: For treating large (>10 mm) proximate ureteral stones, URSL tends to be more effective than ESWL, yet without adding significant risk.
OBJECTIVE: To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) in terms of efficacy, complications, and overall efficiency in the management of proximal ureteral calculi. ESWL and URSL are the 2 most common modalities for treating ureteral stones. Previous studies and meta-analyses suggest that for stones <10 mm, ESWL is safer and of comparable efficacy compared with URSL. However, the choice between one modality over the other for the treatment of stones >10 mm is not as clear. METHODS: The literature was reviewed in the databases, and resulting reports were screened for relevance. This process yielded 10 articles, which were analyzed in terms of the initial stone-free rate (primary outcome measure) compared between the 2 treatment modalities. Pretreatment rate, operation time, auxiliary procedure rate, and complication rate constituted secondary measures in the analysis. RESULTS: A statistically higher initial stone-free rate was demonstrated for URSL compared with ESWL (odds ratio [OR] = 0.349; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.183-0.666; P = .001). ESWL showed a statistically higher retreatment rate compared with URSL (OR = 7.192; 95% CI = 4.934-10.482; P <.001). The 2 treatment modalities did not show statistically significant differences in mean operating time (OR = 10.35; 95% CI = -0.29 to 20.99; P = .056), auxiliary procedure rate (OR = 1.043; 95% CI = 0.415-2.616; P = .929), or in the complication rate (OR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.304-1.984; P = .598). CONCLUSION: For treating large (>10 mm) proximate ureteral stones, URSL tends to be more effective than ESWL, yet without adding significant risk.
Authors: Bora Irer; Mehmet Oguz Sahin; Oguzcan Erbatu; Alperen Yildiz; Sakir Ongun; Onder Cinar; Ahmet Cihan; Mehmet Sahin; Volkan Sen; Oktay Ucer; Fuat Kizilay; Ozan Bozkurt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Rustin Massoudi; Thomas J Metzner; Buzz Bonneau; Tin C Ngo; Rajesh Shinghal; John T Leppert Journal: J Endourol Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 2.942