OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCN) as a treatment for stones of the lower pole of the kidney and to compare their morbidity according to the stone size. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 739 patients treated for a single stone of the lower pole. Group I consisted of 666 patients treated by ESWL and group II consisted of 73 patients treated by PCN. RESULTS: These were assessed at 3 months for 587 ESWL patients (88%) and at day 1 for all PCN patients on renal tomography or ultrasonography. Respectively in groups I and II, 335 patients (57%) and 53 patients (72.6%) were stone-free (p = 0.01). For medium-size (10-20 mm) stone patients, stone-free represented 102 patients (44%) and 29 patients (72.5%) in groups I and II respectively (p = 0.001). For smaller stones (< 10 mm), stone-free represented 231 patients (69%) and 21 patients (84%) in groups I and II respectively (p = 0.12). Morbidity rate was less with ESWL than with PCN. CONCLUSIONS: PCN achieves better results than ESWL for single stone of the lower pole with statistical significance for middle-size stones but with higher morbidity.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCN) as a treatment for stones of the lower pole of the kidney and to compare their morbidity according to the stone size. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 739 patients treated for a single stone of the lower pole. Group I consisted of 666 patients treated by ESWL and group II consisted of 73 patients treated by PCN. RESULTS: These were assessed at 3 months for 587 ESWL patients (88%) and at day 1 for all PCN patients on renal tomography or ultrasonography. Respectively in groups I and II, 335 patients (57%) and 53 patients (72.6%) were stone-free (p = 0.01). For medium-size (10-20 mm) stone patients, stone-free represented 102 patients (44%) and 29 patients (72.5%) in groups I and II respectively (p = 0.001). For smaller stones (< 10 mm), stone-free represented 231 patients (69%) and 21 patients (84%) in groups I and II respectively (p = 0.12). Morbidity rate was less with ESWL than with PCN. CONCLUSIONS: PCN achieves better results than ESWL for single stone of the lower pole with statistical significance for middle-size stones but with higher morbidity.
Authors: Tae Beom Kim; Sang Cheol Lee; Khae Hawn Kim; Han Jung; Sang Jin Yoon; Jin Kyu Oh Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Doo Yong Chung; Dong Hyuk Kang; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Jeong; Hae Do Jung; Jong Kyou Kwon; Seon Heui Lee; Joo Yong Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sam McClinton; Kathryn Starr; Ruth Thomas; Graeme MacLennan; Thomas Lam; Rodolfo Hernandez; Robert Pickard; Ken Anson; Terry Clark; Steven MacLennan; David Thomas; Daron Smith; Ben Turney; Alison McDonald; Sarah Cameron; Oliver Wiseman Journal: Trials Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Hakan Türk; Mehmet Yoldaş; Tufan Süelözgen; Cemal Selcuk İşoğlu; Mustafa Karabıçak; Batuhan Ergani; Sıtkı Ün Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2017-04-07