COMPARISON OF SUCCESS OF EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY (ESWL) AND LASER URETERORENOSCOPY IN PROXIMAL URETERIC STONES

M IMRAN; M TARIQ; M RASOOL; F JAVAID; SMA IMRAN

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.949

Authors

M IMRAN Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation Bahawal Victoria Hospital Bahawalpur Pakistan
M TARIQ Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation Bahawal Victoria Hospital Bahawalpur Pakistan
M RASOOL Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation Bahawal Victoria Hospital Bahawalpur Pakistan
F JAVAID Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation Bahawal Victoria Hospital Bahawalpur Pakistan
SMA IMRAN Nishtar Hospital Multan, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.949

Keywords:

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Laser Ureterorenoscopy, Proximal Ureteric Stone, Stone Clearance, Ureteroscopy

Abstract

Managing ureteral stones to achieve complete stone clearance with minimal patient morbidity involves several therapeutic approaches. The commonly used methods include extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and open ureterolithotomy. However, definitive evidence-based options for managing large proximal ureteral stones are lacking. Objective: To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and laser ureterorenoscopy (URS) success rates in treating proximal ureteric stones. Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Urology & Renal Transplantation at Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur, from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. One hundred four patients, aged 20 to 60, with single proximal ureteric stones measuring 8-15 mm, were included. Patients with pyonephrosis, sepsis, bleeding disorders, solitary kidney, previous open ureterolithotomy, chronic renal failure, proteinuria, recurrent urinary tract infections, congenital urinary tract obstruction, bladder outflow obstruction, chronic liver disease, or a history of chronic drug usage were excluded. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group A underwent URS lithotripsy with DJ stent placement, while Group B underwent ESWL with DJ stent placement. A single surgeon performed all procedures. Pre-operative antibiotics and analgesics were administered to all patients. Stone clearance was assessed two weeks post-procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate methods, with a p-value ≤ 0.05 considered significant. Results: The mean age of patients in Group A was 37.52 ± 11.20 years, and in Group B was 36.73 ± 10.57 years. Most patients (75, 72.12%) were between 20 and 40. Out of the 104 patients, 63 (60.58%) were male, and 41 (39.42%) were female, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.7:1. Complete stone clearance was achieved in 44 (84.62%) patients in Group A (URS group) and 30 (57.69%) patients in Group B (ESWL group), with a statistically significant p-value of 0.002. The study concluded that the stone clearance rate after laser ureterorenoscopy (URS) is significantly higher than extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for proximal ureteric stones.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aboutaleb H, Omar M, Salem S, Elshazly M. Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium: yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser lithotripsy. SAGE open medicine. 2016;4:2050312116685180.

İrer B, Şen V, Erbatu O, Yıldız A, Ongün Ş, Çınar Ö, et al. Comparison of efficacy and complications of holmium laser and pneumatic lithotripters used in the ureterorenoscopic treatment of proximal ureter stones, a multi-center study of society of urological surgery aegean study group. Journal of Urological Surgery. 2018;5(3):158.

Budia Alba A, Caballer Tarazona V, Vivas Consuelo DJJ, López Acon D, Conca M, Pablos D-D, et al. Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy holmium laser lithotripsy in the management of ureteral stones: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Medical & Surgical Urology. 2016;5(3):1-8.

Abo Gareeb ME, Hassan AT, Abdelsami WF. Flexible ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in management of ureteric stones in pediatric age group. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2018;73(3):6213-8.

Zare MA, Mahboob MRD, Rahdari R. Ureteroscopic lithotripsy compared with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of urolithiasis. Reviews in Clinical Medicine. 2016;3(2).

Iqbal N, Malik Y, Nadeem U, Khalid M, Pirzada A, Majeed M, et al. Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience. Turkish journal of urology. 2018;44(3):221.

Darakh PP, Ramesh RB, Doshi C. Comparative study of different modalities of treatment for large upper ureteric calculi. International Surgery Journal. 2019;6(5):1534-9.

Mostafa MM, Gadelmoula MM, Sayed MA, El-Haggagy A-MA. Comparative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the management of upper third ureteral calculi. Journal of Current Medical Research and Practice. 2018;3(3):140-6.

Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Jha SK, Singh H. A prospective randomized comparison between laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones> 2 cm: a single-center experience. Journal of endourology. 2015;29(11):1248-52.

Iqbal N, Assad S, Bhatti JRA, Hasan A, Shabbir MU, Akhter S. Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urolithiasis between children and adults: A single centre study. Cureus. 2016;8(9).

Iqbal N, Hussain I, Waqar S, Sadaf R, Tashfeen R, Nisa Nabil N. Ureteroscopy for management of ureteric stones in children–a single centre experience. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2016;26(12):984-8.

Nasseh H, Pourreza F, Kazemnejad Leyli E, Zohari Nobijari T, Baghani Aval H. Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy: a single-center experience. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2013;23(6):495-9.

Dickstein RJ, Kreshover JE, Babayan RK, Wang DS. Is a safety wire necessary during routine flexible ureteroscopy? Journal of endourology. 2010;24(10):1589-92.

Shaikh AH, Khalid S, Zaidi SZ. Ureteroscopy under spinal versus general anaesthesia: morbidity and stone clearance. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2008;18(3):168-71.

Sung JC, Springhart WP, Marguet CG, James O, Tan YH, Albala DM, et al. Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage. Urology. 2005;66(5):958-63.

Izamin I, Aniza I, Rizal A, Aljunid S. Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteric calculi: a cost-effectiveness study. The Medical journal of Malaysia. 2009;64(1):12-21.

Kumar A, Nanda B, Kumar N, Kumar R, Vasudeva P, Mohanty NK. A prospective randomized comparison between shockwave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones< 2 cm: a single center experience. Journal of Endourology. 2015;29(1):47-51.

Manzoor S, Hashmi AH, Sohail MA, Mahar F, Bhatti S, Khuhro AQ. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. ureterorenoscopic (URS) manipulation in proximal ureteric stone. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2013;23(10):726-30.

Librenjak D, Šitum M, Gugić D, Milostić K, Duvnjak M. Ureterorenoscopic treatment of ureteral stones: influence of operator’s experience and skill on the procedure outcome. Croatian medical journal. 2011;52(1):55-60.

Fong Y, Ho S, Peh O, Ng F, Lim P, Quek P, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and intracorporeal lithotripsy for proximal ureteric calculi-a comparative assessment of efficacy and safety. Annals-Academy OF Medicine Singapore. 2004;33(1):80-3.

Tawfick ER. Treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscope with lithoclast. International archives of Medicine. 2010;3:1-4.

Preminger G. American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc; European Association of Urology. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1610-31.