The effect of stone size on the results of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteric stones

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of stone size on the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) monotherapy vs ureteroscopy (URS) for managing upper ureteric stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study design was a randomised prospective study of a total cohort of 180 patients w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: El-Abd, Ahmed S., Tawfeek, Ahmed M., El-Abd, Shawky A., Gameel, Tarik A., El-Tatawy, Hasan H., El-Sabaa, Magdy A., Soliman, Mohamed G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2021
Materias:
Research Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8881070/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35223107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2021.1996820
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of stone size on the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) monotherapy vs ureteroscopy (URS) for managing upper ureteric stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study design was a randomised prospective study of a total cohort of 180 patients with upper ureteric single stones of 0.5–1.5 cm. Half of the patients were managed by ESWL monotherapy, while the other half underwent URS with stone fragmentation using an ultrasound lithotripter (URSL). The success rate, re-treatment rate, auxiliary procedure (AP) rate, efficacy quotient, and complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: After single URSL and ESWL procedures 70/90 (77.8%) and 35/90 (38.9%) of the stones were successfully cleared, respectively (P < 0.001). The re-treatment rate after ESWL was significantly higher than in the URSL group (38.9% vs 11.1%, P < 0.001). Requiring an AP was not significantly different following ESWL (22.2%) and URSL (24.4%) treatment. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) at 3 months was significantly superior in the URSL group (88.9% vs 77.8%); however, both procedures had excellent results with no significant difference for stones of <1 cm (95.5% vs 92.9%, P > 0.05), compared to better results following URSL for stones of >1 cm (82.6% vs 64.6%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our present study supports that ESWL is recommended as a first-line non-invasive monotherapy for upper ureteric opaque stones of <1 cm, while URSL is recommended as a first-line treatment for stones of >1 cm. The results for URSL were superior with lower a re-treatment rate, rapid stone clearance in a very short time, and less radiation exposure. Therefore, stone size is an important factor for the final decision of the initial management of upper ureteric stones because it has a direct relation to the efficacy of ESWL, but it has no effect on the results of URSL.

Ejemplares similares