Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Proximal Ureteric Calculus of 10 to 20 mm in Size: A single centre experience

OBJECTIVE. To investigate the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (URS) treatment of upper ureteric stones between 10 to 20 mm in size. From January 2020 to January 2023, 75 patients were treated for proximal ureteric calculus between using ESW...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: M. Pushpanathan, O. A. Fahmy, CKS Lee, M. G. Khairul-Asri
Format: Article
Language:Russian
Published: Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University 2024-06-01
Series:Вестник хирургии имени И.И. Грекова
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.vestnik-grekova.ru/jour/article/view/2362
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1846155561812361216
author M. Pushpanathan
O. A. Fahmy
CKS Lee
M. G. Khairul-Asri
author_facet M. Pushpanathan
O. A. Fahmy
CKS Lee
M. G. Khairul-Asri
author_sort M. Pushpanathan
collection DOAJ
description OBJECTIVE. To investigate the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (URS) treatment of upper ureteric stones between 10 to 20 mm in size. From January 2020 to January 2023, 75 patients were treated for proximal ureteric calculus between using ESWL (n=40) & URS (n=35).METHODS AND MATERIALS. Both groups were compared regarding operative time, success rate and complications who underwent treatment for proximal ureteric calculus of 10–20 mm in diameter. URS group was observed to have higher stone-free rate, compared to the ESWL group, 31 (88.6 %) vs 20 patients (50.0 %) (p<0.001).RESULTS. URS treatment had a higher complication rate compared to the ESWL, 9 (25.7 %) vs 3(7.5 %) ;( p=0.032). Procedure time for URS was longer, compared to the ESWL, median (IQR) for URS vs ESWL were 78.0 (65.0, 100.0) vs 62.0 (48.0, 67.0) minutes; (p<0.001).CONCLUSION. We conclude that URS has a better stone-free rate in comparison to a single session of ESWL for upper ureteral calculus of 10–20 mm, with higher complication rates such as post-operative fever and pain.
format Article
id doaj-art-5e043ec99b5d4c8388f9cd65c8dddb64
institution Kabale University
issn 0042-4625
language Russian
publishDate 2024-06-01
publisher Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
record_format Article
series Вестник хирургии имени И.И. Грекова
spelling doaj-art-5e043ec99b5d4c8388f9cd65c8dddb642024-11-26T10:43:58ZrusPavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical UniversityВестник хирургии имени И.И. Грекова0042-46252024-06-011826273110.24884/0042-4625-2023-182-6-27-311593Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Proximal Ureteric Calculus of 10 to 20 mm in Size: A single centre experienceM. Pushpanathan0O. A. Fahmy1CKS Lee2M. G. Khairul-Asri3Department of Urology, Hospital Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah, University Putra MalaysiaDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Putra MalaysiaDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Putra MalaysiaDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Putra MalaysiaOBJECTIVE. To investigate the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (URS) treatment of upper ureteric stones between 10 to 20 mm in size. From January 2020 to January 2023, 75 patients were treated for proximal ureteric calculus between using ESWL (n=40) & URS (n=35).METHODS AND MATERIALS. Both groups were compared regarding operative time, success rate and complications who underwent treatment for proximal ureteric calculus of 10–20 mm in diameter. URS group was observed to have higher stone-free rate, compared to the ESWL group, 31 (88.6 %) vs 20 patients (50.0 %) (p<0.001).RESULTS. URS treatment had a higher complication rate compared to the ESWL, 9 (25.7 %) vs 3(7.5 %) ;( p=0.032). Procedure time for URS was longer, compared to the ESWL, median (IQR) for URS vs ESWL were 78.0 (65.0, 100.0) vs 62.0 (48.0, 67.0) minutes; (p<0.001).CONCLUSION. We conclude that URS has a better stone-free rate in comparison to a single session of ESWL for upper ureteral calculus of 10–20 mm, with higher complication rates such as post-operative fever and pain.https://www.vestnik-grekova.ru/jour/article/view/2362urolithiasisproximal ureteric calculusureteroscopylithotripsyextracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy
spellingShingle M. Pushpanathan
O. A. Fahmy
CKS Lee
M. G. Khairul-Asri
Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Proximal Ureteric Calculus of 10 to 20 mm in Size: A single centre experience
Вестник хирургии имени И.И. Грекова
urolithiasis
proximal ureteric calculus
ureteroscopy
lithotripsy
extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy
title Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Proximal Ureteric Calculus of 10 to 20 mm in Size: A single centre experience
title_full Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Proximal Ureteric Calculus of 10 to 20 mm in Size: A single centre experience
title_fullStr Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Proximal Ureteric Calculus of 10 to 20 mm in Size: A single centre experience
title_full_unstemmed Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Proximal Ureteric Calculus of 10 to 20 mm in Size: A single centre experience
title_short Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Proximal Ureteric Calculus of 10 to 20 mm in Size: A single centre experience
title_sort extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy in proximal ureteric calculus of 10 to 20 mm in size a single centre experience
topic urolithiasis
proximal ureteric calculus
ureteroscopy
lithotripsy
extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy
url https://www.vestnik-grekova.ru/jour/article/view/2362
work_keys_str_mv AT mpushpanathan extracorporealshockwavelithotripsyversusureteroscopiclaserlithotripsyinproximaluretericcalculusof10to20mminsizeasinglecentreexperience
AT oafahmy extracorporealshockwavelithotripsyversusureteroscopiclaserlithotripsyinproximaluretericcalculusof10to20mminsizeasinglecentreexperience
AT ckslee extracorporealshockwavelithotripsyversusureteroscopiclaserlithotripsyinproximaluretericcalculusof10to20mminsizeasinglecentreexperience
AT mgkhairulasri extracorporealshockwavelithotripsyversusureteroscopiclaserlithotripsyinproximaluretericcalculusof10to20mminsizeasinglecentreexperience