Cargando…

Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and cost between ultrasound-guided shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) with an early second session protocol and ureteroscopy (URS) in patients with proximal ureteral stones using the propensity score matching (PSM) method based on a large prospective study. M...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Peng, Zhan, Yunhong, Li, Jia, Liu, Gang, Li, Zhenhua, Bai, Song
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9892663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36729301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04307-0
_version_ 1784881369353027584
author Wang, Peng
Zhan, Yunhong
Li, Jia
Liu, Gang
Li, Zhenhua
Bai, Song
author_facet Wang, Peng
Zhan, Yunhong
Li, Jia
Liu, Gang
Li, Zhenhua
Bai, Song
author_sort Wang, Peng
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and cost between ultrasound-guided shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) with an early second session protocol and ureteroscopy (URS) in patients with proximal ureteral stones using the propensity score matching (PSM) method based on a large prospective study. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or URS) for proximal ureteral stones were enrolled. The stone-free rate (SFR), complications, and cost were recorded. PSM analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1230 patients were included, of whom 81.1% (998) were treated with SWL and 18.9% (232) were treated with URS. After PSM, the SWL group had an equivalent SFR at one month (88.7 vs. 83.6%, P = 0.114) compared with the URS group. Complications were rare and comparable between the two groups, while the incidence of ureteral injuries was higher in the URS group compared with the SWL group (1.4 vs. 0%, P = 0.011). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs. 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (2000 vs. 25,053, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the URS group. CONCLUSION: This prospective PSM cohort demonstrated that ultrasound-guided SWL with an early second session protocol had equivalent effectiveness but better safety and lower cost compared with URS in the treatment of patients with proximal ureteral stones, whether the stones were radiopaque or radiolucent. These results will facilitate treatment decisions for proximal ureteral stones. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-023-04307-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9892663
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98926632023-02-02 Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic Wang, Peng Zhan, Yunhong Li, Jia Liu, Gang Li, Zhenhua Bai, Song World J Urol Original Article PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and cost between ultrasound-guided shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) with an early second session protocol and ureteroscopy (URS) in patients with proximal ureteral stones using the propensity score matching (PSM) method based on a large prospective study. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or URS) for proximal ureteral stones were enrolled. The stone-free rate (SFR), complications, and cost were recorded. PSM analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1230 patients were included, of whom 81.1% (998) were treated with SWL and 18.9% (232) were treated with URS. After PSM, the SWL group had an equivalent SFR at one month (88.7 vs. 83.6%, P = 0.114) compared with the URS group. Complications were rare and comparable between the two groups, while the incidence of ureteral injuries was higher in the URS group compared with the SWL group (1.4 vs. 0%, P = 0.011). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs. 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (2000 vs. 25,053, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the URS group. CONCLUSION: This prospective PSM cohort demonstrated that ultrasound-guided SWL with an early second session protocol had equivalent effectiveness but better safety and lower cost compared with URS in the treatment of patients with proximal ureteral stones, whether the stones were radiopaque or radiolucent. These results will facilitate treatment decisions for proximal ureteral stones. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-023-04307-0. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-02-02 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9892663/ /pubmed/36729301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04307-0 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023, Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Original Article
Wang, Peng
Zhan, Yunhong
Li, Jia
Liu, Gang
Li, Zhenhua
Bai, Song
Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic
title Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic
title_full Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic
title_fullStr Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic
title_short Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic
title_sort comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the covid-19 pandemic
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9892663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36729301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04307-0
work_keys_str_mv AT wangpeng comparisonofshockwavelithotripsyandureteroscopyinpatientswithproximalureteralstonesunderthecovid19pandemic
AT zhanyunhong comparisonofshockwavelithotripsyandureteroscopyinpatientswithproximalureteralstonesunderthecovid19pandemic
AT lijia comparisonofshockwavelithotripsyandureteroscopyinpatientswithproximalureteralstonesunderthecovid19pandemic
AT liugang comparisonofshockwavelithotripsyandureteroscopyinpatientswithproximalureteralstonesunderthecovid19pandemic
AT lizhenhua comparisonofshockwavelithotripsyandureteroscopyinpatientswithproximalureteralstonesunderthecovid19pandemic
AT baisong comparisonofshockwavelithotripsyandureteroscopyinpatientswithproximalureteralstonesunderthecovid19pandemic