RETROGRADE SEMIRIGID URETEROSCOPY VERSUS EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY IN THE TREATMENT OF URETERAL CALCULI BETWEEN 5-15 MM

Authors

  • V.D. RADU “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • D. SIRIOPOL “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • C. RISTESCU “Dr. C. I. Parhon” Hospital Iasi
  • I. TOMAC “Dr. C. I. Parhon” Hospital Iasi
  • P. ONOFREI “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • O. ALMANASREH “Dr. C. I. Parhon” Hospital Iasi
  • R.C. COSTACHE “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Abstract

Ureteral calculi below 15 mm are treated either by retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Controversy regarding the best method still exists, and authors favor one or another procedure. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare these two procedures. Material and methods: The study compared the results of 71 patients treated by retrograde ureteroscopy and 57 patients treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Results: Out of the 71 patients treated by ureteroscopy, 60 (84.5%) were stone-free, one month after the procedure. In 11 cases (15.5%), the stone could not have been reached or the fragments migrated in the pyelocaliceal system (residual fragments). Out of the 57 patients treated by ESWL, 21 (36.9%) required only one session to break the stone, 33 (57.9%) needed two sessions, one patient, three sessions and in two cases, the stone could not be focalized. The stone-free rate was evaluated three months after the last session, and it was 87.7%  for ESWL. There was only one complication in each group. Conclusions: The difference of stone-free rate between the two procedures was not statistically significant. Ureteroscopy achieved the status stone-free earlier, in contrast with ESWL, who needed a longer time. Both procedures had lower rate of complications.

Author Biographies

  • V.D. RADU, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

    Faculty of Medicine
    Department of Surgery (II)

  • D. SIRIOPOL, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

    Faculty of Medicine
    Department of Medical Specialties (I)

  • P. ONOFREI, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

    Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
    Faculty of Medicine
    Department of Morpho-functional Sciences (II)

  • R.C. COSTACHE, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

    Faculty of Medicine
    Department of Surgery (II)

References

1. Tuerk C, et al. EAU Guidelines on urolithiasis edition 27, 2018.
2. Bozkurt Y, Sancaktutar AA, Bostanci Y, Kapan M, Cayci HM. Comparison of extracorporeal wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic stone extraction in the treatment of ureteral stones. Eur J Gen Med 2010; 7(1): 29-34.
3. Cui X, Ji F, Yan H, Ou TW, Jia CS, He XZ, Gao W, Wang Q, Bo C, Wu JT. Comparison between extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis. Urology 2015; 85(4): 748-756.
4. Ghalayini IF, Al-Ghazo MA, Khader YS. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: Efficacy and patient satisfaction. Internat Braz J Urol 2006; 32(6): 656-667.
5. Batra R, Batra P, Bokariya P, Kothari R. Role of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in management of upper ureteric stones. Afr J of Urol 2018; 24: 186-190.
6. Deliveliotis CH, Stavropoulos NI, Koustakalis G, Kostakopoulos A, Dimopoulos C. Distal ureteral calculi: ureteroscopy vs. ESWL. A prospective analysis. Internat Urol Nephrol 1996; 28(5): 627-631.
7. Verze P, Imbimbo C, Cancelmo G, Creta M, Palmieri A, Mangiapia F, Bucopane R, Vicenzo M. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopy as first-line therapy for patients with single, distal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study. BJU Internat 2010; 106: 1748-1752.
8. Hofbauer J, Tuerk C, Hobarth K, Hasun R, Marberg M. ESWL in situ or ureteroscopy for ureteric stones. World J Urol 1993; 11: 54-58.
9. Ghoneim IA, El-Ghoneimy MN, El-Naggar AE, Hammoud KM, El-Gammal, Morsi AA. Extracor-poreal shock wave lithotripsy in impacted upper ureteral stones: a prospective randomized comparison between stented and non-stented techniques. Urology 2010; 75(1): 45-50.
10. Pettenati C,et al.Double J stent reduces the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of lumbar ureteral stones. Cent Eur J Urol 2013; 66(3): 309-313.
11. Mohamed Abdel-Khalek,Khaled Z. Sheir, Emad Elsobky, Soled Showkey and Mahmoud Kenawy. Prognostic factors for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteric stones. A multivariate analysis study. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2003;37(5): 413-418.
12. Chen PC, Liu YT, Hsieh JH, Wang CC. A practical formula to predict the stone-free rate of patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Sci 2017; 28: 215-218.
13. Mateu PB, Alba AB, Liatsikos E, Trassierra Villa M, Acon-Lopez JD, de Guzman Ordaz D, Boronat Tormo F. Is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy a current treatment for urolithiasis? A systematic review. Actas Urol Esp 2017; 41(7): 426-434.
14. Budia A, Caballer V, Lopez-Acon JD, Vivas-Consuelo D, Conca MA, Bahilo P, Trassierra M. Com-parision of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy holmium laser lithotripsy in the management of ureteral stones: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Urol 2015; 193(4s): e1203.
15. Honeck P, Hacker A, Alken P, Michel S, Knoll T. Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Urol Res 2006; 34:190-192.
16. Xu Y, Lu Y, Li J, Luo S, Liu Y, Jia Z, Chen P, Guo Y, Zhao Q, Ma X, Jia S. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of ureteroscopic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on ureteral calculi. Acta Cirurg Brasil 2014; 29(4): 346-352.
17. Yang C, Li S, Cui Y. Comparison of YAG laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of ureteral calculi: a meta-analysis. Urol Int 2017; 98: 373-381.
18. Drake T, Grivas N, Dabestani S, Knoll T, Lam T, Maclennan S, Petrik A, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Tuerk C, Yuan CY, Sarica K. What are the benefits and harms of ureteroscopy compared with shock-wave lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral stones? A systematic review. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 772-786.
19. Miron A, Puia D, Pricop C. Urinoma: a potential urologic emergency. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi 2017; 121(3): 548-552.
20. Negru I, Pangal A, Pricop C, Mihălceanu E, Costăchescu G, Negru D. Management of renal colic during pregnancy. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi 2018; 122(1): 109-115.

Additional Files

Published

2020-06-30

Issue

Vol. 124 No. 2 (2020): The Medical-Surgical Journal

Section

SURGERY

License

COPYRIGHT 
Once an article is accepted for publication, MSJ requests a transfer of copyrights for published articles.

COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM FOR 

REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ A SOCIETĂȚII DE MEDICI ȘI NATURALIȘTI DIN IAȘI /

THE MEDICAL-SURGICAL JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF PHYSICIANS AND NATURALISTS FROM IASI

We, the undersigned authors of the manuscript entitled

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

warrant that this manuscript, which is submitted for publication in the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, has not been published and it is not under consideration for publication in another journal.

  1. we give the consent for publication in the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, in printed and electronic format and we transfer unconditioned and complete the copyright of this manuscript to the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, in the event of its acceptance.
  2. the manuscript does not break the intellectual property rights of any other person.
  3. we have read the submitted version of the manuscript and we are fully responsible for the content.

Names and signatures of authors / copyright owners (the following sequence is the authorship of the article):

  1. ______________________________/_________________________
  2. ______________________________/_________________________
  3. ______________________________/_________________________

N.B.  All the authors must sign this form