Cargando…

Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Calculi

Objective The goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness and complications of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the management of patients with proximal ureteral stones. Methods In this trial, 150 patients presenting with proximal u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ur Rehman, Muhammad Fazal, Adnan, Muhammad, Hassan, Ali, Humayun Akhtar, Fawad, Javed, Naseem, Ali, Farman
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7250525/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32467815
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7840
_version_ 1783538777459785728
author Ur Rehman, Muhammad Fazal
Adnan, Muhammad
Hassan, Ali
Humayun Akhtar, Fawad
Javed, Naseem
Ali, Farman
author_facet Ur Rehman, Muhammad Fazal
Adnan, Muhammad
Hassan, Ali
Humayun Akhtar, Fawad
Javed, Naseem
Ali, Farman
author_sort Ur Rehman, Muhammad Fazal
collection PubMed
description Objective The goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness and complications of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the management of patients with proximal ureteral stones. Methods In this trial, 150 patients presenting with proximal ureteral stones at the Department of Urology of Nishter Hospital Multan from November 2018 to November 2019 were allocated 1:1 to undergo URS or SWL. The presence of stone fragments <4 mm on follow-up was regarded as being stone free. The study outcomes included stone-free rates after first, second, and third treatment sessions and stone retropulsion into the kidneys. Results A total of 75 patients each underwent URS and SWL. The mean procedure times for SWL and URS were 61.61± 3.21 and 85.01±6.75 minutes, respectively (P=0.000), and the mean numbers of procedures were 1.51±0.49 and 1.01±0.42, respectively (P=0.000). Stone-free rates after the first, second, and third sessions of SWL were 64%, 77.3%, and 94.7%, respectively, whereas stone-free rates after the first, second, and third sessions of URS were 86.7%, 92%, and 100%, respectively. Rates of stone retropulsion into the kidneys in the SWL and URS groups were 0% and 6.7%, respectively (P=0.000). Conclusion Compared with SWL, URS had significantly higher stone-free rates in patients with proximal ureteral stones. Treatment costs and hospital stay were lower in the SWL group, whereas complication rates were comparable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7250525
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72505252020-05-27 Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Calculi Ur Rehman, Muhammad Fazal Adnan, Muhammad Hassan, Ali Humayun Akhtar, Fawad Javed, Naseem Ali, Farman Cureus Urology Objective The goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness and complications of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the management of patients with proximal ureteral stones. Methods In this trial, 150 patients presenting with proximal ureteral stones at the Department of Urology of Nishter Hospital Multan from November 2018 to November 2019 were allocated 1:1 to undergo URS or SWL. The presence of stone fragments <4 mm on follow-up was regarded as being stone free. The study outcomes included stone-free rates after first, second, and third treatment sessions and stone retropulsion into the kidneys. Results A total of 75 patients each underwent URS and SWL. The mean procedure times for SWL and URS were 61.61± 3.21 and 85.01±6.75 minutes, respectively (P=0.000), and the mean numbers of procedures were 1.51±0.49 and 1.01±0.42, respectively (P=0.000). Stone-free rates after the first, second, and third sessions of SWL were 64%, 77.3%, and 94.7%, respectively, whereas stone-free rates after the first, second, and third sessions of URS were 86.7%, 92%, and 100%, respectively. Rates of stone retropulsion into the kidneys in the SWL and URS groups were 0% and 6.7%, respectively (P=0.000). Conclusion Compared with SWL, URS had significantly higher stone-free rates in patients with proximal ureteral stones. Treatment costs and hospital stay were lower in the SWL group, whereas complication rates were comparable. Cureus 2020-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7250525/ /pubmed/32467815 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7840 Text en Copyright © 2020, Ur Rehman et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Urology
Ur Rehman, Muhammad Fazal
Adnan, Muhammad
Hassan, Ali
Humayun Akhtar, Fawad
Javed, Naseem
Ali, Farman
Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Calculi
title Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Calculi
title_full Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Calculi
title_fullStr Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Calculi
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Calculi
title_short Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Calculi
title_sort comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi
topic Urology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7250525/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32467815
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7840
work_keys_str_mv AT urrehmanmuhammadfazal comparisonofureteroscopicpneumaticlithotripsyandextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforproximalureteralcalculi
AT adnanmuhammad comparisonofureteroscopicpneumaticlithotripsyandextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforproximalureteralcalculi
AT hassanali comparisonofureteroscopicpneumaticlithotripsyandextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforproximalureteralcalculi
AT humayunakhtarfawad comparisonofureteroscopicpneumaticlithotripsyandextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforproximalureteralcalculi
AT javednaseem comparisonofureteroscopicpneumaticlithotripsyandextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforproximalureteralcalculi
AT alifarman comparisonofureteroscopicpneumaticlithotripsyandextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforproximalureteralcalculi