Literature DB >> 29733796

Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience.

Nadeem Iqbal1, Yashfeen Malik2, Utbah Nadeem2, Maham Khalid2, Amna Pirzada2, Mehr Majeed2, Hajra Arshad Malik2, Saeed Akhter1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of ureteroscopic (URS) pneumatic lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the management of the proximal ureteral stones in terms of stone- free rates, complications and costs involved.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included 200 patients in Group 1 who underwent ESWL and 200 patients in Group 2 who underwent URS intervention. We used Modulith SL X lithotripter 3rd generation Storz medical for ESWL group while Swiss pneumatic lithoclast was used to break the stone in the URS group. Stone-free status was defined as stone fragment of less than 4 mm on follow- up kidney ureter and bladder X-ray after 3 months of procedure. SPSS version 16 was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: The mean age in ESWL and URS groups were 39.21±13.36, and 43.13±13.65 years respectively. Mean stone size was 10.47±3.7 mm (ESWL) and 13.6±6.6 mm (URS). Stone- free rate after single procedure was (125/200 patients) 62.5% for ESWL and (168/200 patients) 84% for URS group (p=0.001). Complications included post procedure sepsis in 3 (1.5%) patient of ESWL, while 7 (3.5%) patients of URS groups. Steinstrasse was seen in 4 (2%) patients of ESWL group. No mortality was seen in both groups. Mean costs for ESWL were US $320±50 while US $1100±150 for URS group (p=0.001).
CONCLUSION: The stone-free rates after single procedure were significantly higher for the URS group while the complication rates were comparable in both groups. Treatment costs were significantly lower for the ESWL group.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 29733796      PMCID: PMC5937642          DOI: 10.5152/tud.2018.41848

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk J Urol        ISSN: 2149-3235


  27 in total

1.  Safety and efficacy of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy.

Authors:  Adeel Ahmed Khan; Syed Alamdar Hussain; Naqeeb-Ullah Khan; Syed Muhammad Kamran Majeed; Muhammad Sulaiman
Journal:  J Coll Physicians Surg Pak       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 0.711

2.  Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser.

Authors:  Brian D Parker; Robert W Frederick; T Philip Reilly; Patrick S Lowry; Erin T Bird
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Ureteroscopic pneumatic versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower ureteral stones.

Authors:  Muhammad Islam; Asif Malik
Journal:  J Coll Physicians Surg Pak       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 0.711

4.  Extracorporeal Shock-wave Lithotripsy Success Rate and Complications: Initial Experience at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital.

Authors:  Mohammed S Al-Marhoon; Omar Shareef; Ismail S Al-Habsi; Ataalrahman S Al Balushi; Josephkunju Mathew; Krishna P Venkiteswaran
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2013-07

5.  Matched pair analysis of ureteroscopy vs. shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteric calculi.

Authors:  G D Stewart; S V Bariol; S A Moussa; G Smith; D A Tolley
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2007-03-26       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Ureteroscopy: the first-line treatment for distally located ureteral stones smaller than 10 mm.

Authors:  Mustafa Kiraç; Mehmet Sinan Atkin; Hasan Biri; Nuri Deniz
Journal:  Urol J       Date:  2014-01-04       Impact factor: 1.510

7.  A prospective randomized comparison between shockwave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones <2 cm: a single center experience.

Authors:  Anup Kumar; Biswajit Nanda; Niraj Kumar; Rohit Kumar; Pawan Vasudeva; Nayan K Mohanty
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.942

8.  The success of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy based on the stone-attenuation value from non-contrast computed tomography.

Authors:  Amr M Massoud; Ahmed M Abdelbary; Ahmad A Al-Dessoukey; Ayman S Moussa; Ahmed S Zayed; Osama Mahmmoud
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2014-02-16

9.  Large proximal ureteral stones: Ideal treatment modality?

Authors:  B Kadyan; V Sabale; D Mane; V Satav; A Mulay; N Thakur; S P Kankalia
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun

10.  Optimal Skin-to-Stone Distance Is a Positive Predictor for Successful Outcomes in Upper Ureter Calculi following Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Bayesian Model Averaging Approach.

Authors:  Kang Su Cho; Hae Do Jung; Won Sik Ham; Doo Yong Chung; Yong Jin Kang; Won Sik Jang; Jong Kyou Kwon; Young Deuk Choi; Joo Yong Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  4 in total

1.  Role of Stone Heterogeneity Index in Determining Success of Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urinary Calculi.

Authors:  Nadeem Iqbal; Aisha Hasan; Ahsan Nazar; Sajid Iqbal; Mohammad Haroon Hassan; Behzad Saeed Gill; Rabiyya Khan; Saeed Akhter; Rodrigo Suarez-Ibarrola
Journal:  J Clin Transl Res       Date:  2021-03-24

2.  Comparison of mean operative time in patients undergoing Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy and pneumatic lithotripsy in ureterorenoscopy for ureteric calculus.

Authors:  Muhammad Tanveer Sajid; Mohammad Ameen; Badar Murtaza; Muhammad Sarwar Alvi; Zakir Khan; Faran Kiani
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2021 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.088

3.  Factors influencing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy efficiency for optimal patient selection.

Authors:  Marius Snicorius; Arnas Bakavicius; Albertas Cekauskas; Marius Miglinas; Gediminas Platkevicius; Arunas Zelvys
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 1.195

Review 4.  A Systematic Review on Comparative Analyses between Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Shock-Wave Lithotripsy for Ureter Stone According to Stone Size.

Authors:  Hae Do Jung; Youna Hong; Joo Yong Lee; Seon Heui Lee
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 2.430

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.