Comparison Between Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Treating Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Meta-analysis

Cui, Xin; Ji, Fan; Hu, Yan; Ou, Tongwen; Jia, Chenguang; He, Xinzhou; Gao, Wei; Wang, Qi; Cui, Bo; Wu, Jianping

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.11.041

Cited by 52 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, URS had a shorter operative time and lower complication rate than LU and a shorter hospital stay compared with PCNL. One meta-analysis compared URS with ESWL in treating large upper ureteral stones [15] . They did not compare URS with PCNL or LU.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A meta-analysis recently performed by Zhao et al [14] compared PCNL with LU in the management of large upper urinary stones, but it focused on the treatment of kidney stones and failed to include many trials comparing URS with PCNL or LU in the management of upper ureter calculus. Another meta-analysis pooled data comparing ESWL with URS for treating the large proximal ureteral stones; the results of this analysis indicated that URS tends to be more effective than ESWL, yet without adding any significant risk [15] . However, in this analysis, URS was not compared with PCNL or LU.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Wu¹,

Duan

Chen³

et al. 2017

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing ureterolithotripsy (URS) with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) techniques for the management of large proximal ureteral stones (diameter greater than 10 mm). Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify suitable studies until November 2016. We used weighted mean difference to measure operative time and hospital stay, OR to measure stone free rate (SFR), and complication rate. Subgroup analyses were assessed for heterogeneity. Results: Fourteen publications strictly met our eligibility criteria of which 7 were randomized control studies (RCTs) and 7 non-RCTs. Meta-analysis of extractable data showed that LU and PCNL had higher SFR than URS. URS led to a similar hospital stay like that of LU. However, it had a shorter operative time and lower complication rate than LU. When we compared URS with PCNL, we found a shorter hospital stay in the URS group. However, there was no significant difference in terms of the operative time and complication rate between URS and PCNL. Conclusion: URS should be considered standard therapy for treating large proximal ureteral stones.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Wu¹,

Duan

Chen³

et al. 2017

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Urolithiasis is the most common worldwide cause of morbidity in patients with diseases of the urinary tract [1]. Minimally invasive procedures have eased the removal of urinary tract stones [2].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Calculi

Rehman

Adnan

Hassan

et al. 2020

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness and complications of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the management of patients with proximal ureteral stones. Methods In this trial, 150 patients presenting with proximal ureteral stones at the Department of Urology of Nishter Hospital Multan from November 2018 to November 2019 were allocated 1:1 to undergo URS or SWL. The presence of stone fragments <4 mm on follow-up was regarded as being stone free. The study outcomes included stone-free rates after first, second, and third treatment sessions and stone retropulsion into the kidneys. Results A total of 75 patients each underwent URS and SWL. The mean procedure times for SWL and URS were 61.61± 3.21 and 85.01±6.75 minutes, respectively (P=0.000), and the mean numbers of procedures were 1.51±0.49 and 1.01±0.42, respectively (P=0.000). Stone-free rates after the first, second, and third sessions of SWL were 64%, 77.3%, and 94.7%, respectively, whereas stone-free rates after the first, second, and third sessions of URS were 86.7%, 92%, and 100%, respectively. Rates of stone retropulsion into the kidneys in the SWL and URS groups were 0% and 6.7%, respectively (P=0.000). Conclusion Compared with SWL, URS had significantly higher stone-free rates in patients with proximal ureteral stones. Treatment costs and hospital stay were lower in the SWL group, whereas complication rates were comparable.

show abstract

“…In order to limit missed time from work and multiple anesthetics, some patients desire treatment of all stones, including those in both kidneys, in one setting. Shock wave lithotripsy, while a good option for small to moderate sized solitary urolithiasis, has been shown to be associated with worse stonefree and retreatment rates, especially with multiple stones, when compared to ureteroscopy (3,4). Ureteroscopy has good reported stone free rates, but does carry a known risk of infection and ureteral injury of 10-16% (5).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Same-Session Bilateral Ureteroscopy: Safety and Outcomes

Ingimarsson

Rivera

Knoedler

et al. 2017

Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison Between Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Treating Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Meta-analysis

Cited by 52 publications

References 14 publications

Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Calculi

Same-Session Bilateral Ureteroscopy: Safety and Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About