• Users Online: 231
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 140-146

Comparative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the management of upper third ureteral calculi


Department of Urology, Assiut Urology and Nephrology Hospital, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Mostafa M Mostafa
Department of Urology, Assiut Urology and Nephrology Hospital, Assiut University, Assiut 71515
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCMRP.JCMRP_154_18

Rights and Permissions

Purpose To do a matched pair analysis of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopy (URS) for the management of upper third ureteral calculi. Patients and methods Totally 60 cases, between 25 and 52 years referred to our endourology clinic with large upper third ureteral calculi (≥1 cm in size and ≥900 HU in density). The cases were classified into two groups. Group A (30 cases) underwent ESWL, while group B (30 cases) underwent URS. All cases were evaluated by plain KUB (Plain X-ray on Kidney, Ureter and Urinary Bladder), abdominal ultrasound, and MSCT KUB (MultiSlice Computed Tomography on Kidney, Ureter and urinary Bladder) without contrast. Stone clearance has been assessed both after the procedure and at 3-month follow-up for URS cases and 3-week follow-up for ESWL cases. Results Complete stone clearance occurred in 20 (66.7%) of the 30 patients undergoing ESWL and in 24 (80%) of the 30 patients undergoing URS, indicating no significant difference in overall stone clearance between both groups. However, the ESWL cases needed longer time, greater number of sessions, and sometimes auxillary procedures and acorrdingly ESWL was less cost-effective than URS. We also identified in our study three cutoff points for ESWL cases above which the case will mostly need more than one session (skin to stone distance >8.8 cm, stone size >1.1 cm, and stone density >1100 HU). Conclusion Both ESWL and URS are efficient modalities for the management of upper third ureteral stones. However, in large upper third ureteral stones (>1.1 cm), with high density (>1100 HU) especially in obese patients (skin to stone distance more than 8.8 cm), URS has proved to be a more practical option.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed41    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded11    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal