Comparison of the Success Rate of Mid and Distal Ureteric Calculi after Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy (URSL) in Nongkhai Hospital
Keywords:
mid and distal ureteric calculi, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL)Abstract
There are several methods of treating ureteric calculi, including medication to relieve symptoms together with follow-up, Medical expulsive therapy, Extracorporeal shockwave (ESWL), ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and open ureterolithotomy. However, the choice of treatment depends on many factors. This study therefore aims to compare the success rate of middle and distal ureteric calculi after treatment with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL). It is a retrospective descriptive analysis in patients with mid and distal ureteric calculi in NongKhai Hospital for a period of 5 years from 2015-2020, totaling 196 cases, of which 139 were treated with URSL and 57 were treated with ESWL. The success rate was calculated from the rate of total stone removal after 4-6 weeks of treatment by comparing the treatment results of the two methods as follows: demographic data, stone characteristic data, the first session stone free rate, re-treatment rate, the second session stone free rate, auxiliary treatment and complication were collected. Data were analyzed using independent sample t-test, Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test (95% CI, p<0.05). From this study, demographic data (such as age, sex, comorbidities, body mass index, and renal function) and stone characteristic data (such as the size of the stones, the number of stones) were not significantly different between both groups. The stone-free rate after the first URSL was 91.37% and 41.37% after the first ESWL treatment (p<0.001). ESWL group were significantly higher re-treatment rate than URSL group (URSL 1.44% & ESWL 35.05%, p<0.05). There was no significant difference between URSL group and ESWL group in the second session stone free rate (URSL 91.37% & ESWL 82.46%) and complications (URSL 1.43% & ESWL 0%). ESWL group was significantly shorter mean of hospital stay 0.30 day compared to 2.81 days in URSL group. In subgroup analysis, stone size ≤10 mm had significantly higher stone free rate than stone > 10 mm in URSL group. (Odd ratio 4.060, 95% CI=1.167–14.128). In conclusion, URSL had a higher first success rate of the middle and distal ureteric calculi than ESWL; and ESWL had a higher re-treatment rate compared to URSL. However, the success rate in the second ESWL treatment was the same as URSL.
Downloads
References
Türk C, Neisius A, Petřík A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Thomas K, et al. EAU Guidelines on urolithasis. Arnhem, the Netherlands: European Association of Urology; 2018.
Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K, Rodgers A, Talati J, Lotan Y. Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol 2017;35(9):1301-20.
Chaimuangraj S, Leungwattanakij S, Gojaseni P. The current therapy of urinary calculi inThailand. J med Assoc Thai 2000;83:701-7.
มณฑิรา มฤคทัต, อดิศร อภิวัฒน์การุญ, ชูศักดิ์ ปริพัฒนานนท์. นิ่วทางเดินปัสสาวะในโรงพยาบาลสงขลานครินทร์. สงขลานครินทร์เวชสาร 2545;20(4):251-9.
Ibrahim AI, Shetty SD, Awad RM, Patel KP. Prognostic factors in the conservative treatment of ureteric stones. Br J Urol 1991;67(4):358-61.
El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O, Sheir KZ. A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomography. Eur Urol 2007;51(6):1688-93; discussion 1693-4.
Musa AA. Use of double-J stents prior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is not beneficial: results of a prospective randomized study. Int Urol Nephrol 2008; 40(1):19-22.
Wang H, Man L, Li G, Huang G, Liu N, Wang J. Meta-analysis of stenting versus non-stenting for the treatment of ureteral stones. PLoS One 2017;12(1):e0167670.
Li K, Lin T, Zhang C, Fan X, Xu K, Bi L, et al. Optimal frequency of shock wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Urol 2013;190(4):1260- 7.
Pishchalnikov YA, Neucks JS, VonDerHaar RJ, Pishchalnikova IV, Williams JC Jr, McAteer JA. Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shock wave energy. J Urol 2006;176(6 Pt 1):2706-10.
Jain A, Shah TK. Effect of air bubbles in the coupling medium on efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 2007;51(6):1680-6; discussion 1686-7.
Aboumarzouk OM, Hasan R, Tasleem A, Mariappan M, Hutton R, Fitzpatrick J, et al. Analgesia for patients undergoing shockwave lithotripsy for urinary stones - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Braz J Urol 2017;43(3):394-406.
Chen K, Mi H, Xu G, Liu L, Sun X, Wang S, et al. The efficacy and safety of tamsulosin combined with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Endourol 2015;29(10):1166-76.
Cybulski PA, Joo H, Honey RJ. Ureteroscopy: anesthetic considerations. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31(1):43- 7.
Leijte JA, Oddens JR, Lock TM. Holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: predictive factors for complications and success. J Endourol 2008;22(2):257-60.
Binbay M, Tepeler A, Singh A, Akman T, Tekinaslan E, Sarilar O, et al. Evaluation of pneumatic versus holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted ureteral stones. Int Urol Nephrol 2011;43(4):989-95.
Verze P, Imbimbo C, Cancelmo G, Creta M, Palmieri A, Mangiapia F, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy as first-line therapy for patients with single, distal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study. BJU Int 2010;106(11):1748-52.
Hendrikx AJ, Strijbos WE, de Knijff DW, Kums JJ, Doesburg WH, Lemmens WA. Treatment for extendedmid and distal ureteral stones: SWL or ureteroscopy? Results of a multicenter study. J Endourol 1999; 13(10):727-33.
Zeng GQ, Zhong WD, Cai YB, Dai QS, Hu JB, Wei HA. Extracorporeal shock-wave versus pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy in treatment of lower ureteral calculi. Asian J Androl 2002;4(4):303-5.
Honeck P, Häcker A, Alken P, Michel MS, Knoll T. Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Urol Res 2006; 34(3):190-2.
Picozzi SC, Ricci C, Gaeta M, Casellato S, Stubinski R, Bozzini G, et al. Urgent ureteroscopy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 681 patients. Urol Res 2012;40:581-6.
Dell’Atti L, Papa S. Ten-year experience in the management of distal ureteral stones greater than 10 mm in size. G Chir 2016;37(1):27-30.
Abdelghany M, Zaher T, El Halaby R, Osman T. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of lower ureteric stones: Outcome and criteria for success. Arab J Urol 2011; 9(1):35-9.
Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ, Pace KT. Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi. Urol Res. 2010;38(4):307-13.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
