Cargando…

Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy

OBJECTIVE: Prospective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy with Holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy (URSL) as a primary treatment for impacted stone in the proximal ureter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 82 patients with a single imp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Khalil, Mostafa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3685752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23798864
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.110004
_version_ 1782273730430369792
author Khalil, Mostafa
author_facet Khalil, Mostafa
author_sort Khalil, Mostafa
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Prospective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy with Holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy (URSL) as a primary treatment for impacted stone in the proximal ureter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 82 patients with a single impacted stone in the proximal ureter were included in the study. Patients were allocated into two groups according to patient preference for either procedure. The first group included 37 patients who were treated by SWL and the second group included 45 patients treated by URSL. The preoperative data and treatment outcomes of both procedures were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: There was no difference as regards to patient and stone characters between the two groups. There was significantly higher mean session number and re-treatment rate in the SWL group in comparison to URSL group (1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.02 ± 0.15 session, and 43.2% vs. 2.2%, respectively). At one month, the stone-free rate of the URSL group was statistically significantly higher than that of the SWL group (80% vs. 67.6%, respectively). The stone-free rate at three months was still higher in the URSL group, but without statistically significant difference (80.2% vs. 78.4%, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of complications between the SWL and URSL (24.3% vs. 15.6%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both procedures can be used effectively and safely as a primary treatment for impacted stone in the proximal ureter; however, the URSL has a significantly higher initial stone-free rate and lower re-treatment rate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3685752
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36857522013-06-24 Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy Khalil, Mostafa Urol Ann Original Article OBJECTIVE: Prospective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy with Holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy (URSL) as a primary treatment for impacted stone in the proximal ureter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 82 patients with a single impacted stone in the proximal ureter were included in the study. Patients were allocated into two groups according to patient preference for either procedure. The first group included 37 patients who were treated by SWL and the second group included 45 patients treated by URSL. The preoperative data and treatment outcomes of both procedures were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: There was no difference as regards to patient and stone characters between the two groups. There was significantly higher mean session number and re-treatment rate in the SWL group in comparison to URSL group (1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.02 ± 0.15 session, and 43.2% vs. 2.2%, respectively). At one month, the stone-free rate of the URSL group was statistically significantly higher than that of the SWL group (80% vs. 67.6%, respectively). The stone-free rate at three months was still higher in the URSL group, but without statistically significant difference (80.2% vs. 78.4%, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of complications between the SWL and URSL (24.3% vs. 15.6%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both procedures can be used effectively and safely as a primary treatment for impacted stone in the proximal ureter; however, the URSL has a significantly higher initial stone-free rate and lower re-treatment rate. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC3685752/ /pubmed/23798864 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.110004 Text en Copyright: © Urology Annals http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Khalil, Mostafa
Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy
title Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy
title_full Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy
title_fullStr Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy
title_full_unstemmed Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy
title_short Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy
title_sort management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: yag laser lithotripsy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3685752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23798864
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.110004
work_keys_str_mv AT khalilmostafa managementofimpactedproximalureteralstoneextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyversusureteroscopywithholmiumyaglaserlithotripsy