Small renal pelvis stones: Shock wave lithotripsy or flexible ureteroscopy? A match-pair analysis

Gürbüz, Zafer Gökhan; Şener, Nevzat Can; Vuruşkan, Ediz; Deniz, Mehmet Eflatun; Gürlen, Güçlü; Ortoglu, Ferhat

doi:10.5152/tud.2018.70094

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, the stone-free rate was 77.6%. In comparison, Gürbuz et al reported 92.5% stone-free rate and found no statistical difference between ESWL and F-URS for treating small renal pelvic stones less than 10 mm in diameter [6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…It involves stones as small as a grain of sand or as large as a staghorn. Symptomatic or asymptomatic small renal stones that are 6-8 mm in diameter can either be treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or retrograde flexible ureteroscopy [6][7][8][9]. The optimal treatment approach depends on the preferences of the physician and the patient, in addition to the availability of equipment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fragmentation and propulsive effect of shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of small renal calculi

Abid

Hussein

2020

Afr J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Small renal calculi are frequently observed in clinical practice, and chemo-lytic therapy has limited effects. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of small renal calculi. Methods We studied 60 patients with small renal stones from March 2017 to March 2019. After excluding eight patients with incomplete data, the remaining 52 patients were evaluated. Patients with symptomatic single or multiple stones of 6–8 mm in diameter or asymptomatic on ultrasound and kidney-ureter-bladder radiograph were eligible for inclusion. Small stones were treated by ESWL. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences - version 25 (IBM Corporation). Results The mean age of the 52 patients was 34.5 ± 9.5 years. Forty-one (78.8%) patients were symptomatic, while 11 (21.2%) were asymptomatic. Forty-seven (90.4%) had single small renal stones, while four patients had two stones (7.7%) and only one patient had three stones (1.9%). Forty-five stones were successfully treated by ESWL, while 13 stones failed to respond. Conclusion ESWL is a useful tool for treating small renal calculi; it works either by fragmenting the stones or by acting as a pushing force. However, further large prospective studies are needed to corroborate the above conclusions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fragmentation and propulsive effect of shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of small renal calculi

Abid

Hussein

2020

Afr J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The modern view on the surgical treatment of nephrolithiasis

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The choice of surgical treatment for nephrolithiasis remains a matter of debate. The article is a literature review dedicated to a comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and endoscopic methods for the treatment of nephrolithiasis. The literature review was based on the analysis of articles published in the PubMed / MEDLINE, and eLibrary databases. Sixty publications on the topic of the review were analysed. As a result of data analysis, endoscopic therapies have a significant advantage over ESWL with comparable safety. The development and dissemination of less invasive techniques such as mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in the future may change the approach to the surgical treatment of any form of nephrolithiasis.

show abstract

Comparison of Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Flexible Ureterorenoscopy in the Treatment of 10–20 mm Lower Pole Stone: Prospective Non-randomized Study

Kezer¹

2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The objective of the study is to clarify the efficiency, safety, and limitations of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (f-URS) in the management of lower pole stones (LPS).Methods: The present study was planned prospectively in a non-randomized manner. Patients who had LPS between 10 and 20 cm in size were enrolled in the study. Patient demographic characteristics, stone-related parameters, complications, and success were noted. Patients who underwent SWL and patients who underwent f-URS were compared according to demographic characteristics, procedure-related parameters, complications, and success rate.Results: A total of 82 patients matched the study inclusion criteria, with 44 patients treated with SWL and 38 patients treated with f-URS. The time between diagnosis and the end of the treatment was 29.2 days in the SWL group and 15.2 days in the f-URS group (p = 0.001). The success rate was 89.5% with f-URS and 72.7% with SWL (p = 0.036). Receiver operating curve analysis revealed that a stone size larger than 14 mm in the lower pole was significantly associated with SWL failure (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.711, p = 0.033), and a stone size larger than 16 mm was a predictive factor for f-URS failure. Conclusion:The present study found that f-URS had a significantly higher stone-free rate in the management of 10-20 mm LPS compared to SWL. For the first time, this study showed that the time between diagnosis and the end of treatment was significantly shorter with f-URS. Moreover, LPS larger than 14 mm and 16 mm were predictive factors for SWL and f-URS failure, respectively.

show abstract

Small renal pelvis stones: Shock wave lithotripsy or flexible ureteroscopy? A match-pair analysis

Abstract: Even though there is no statistical difference among groups, our data may be interpreted as having better outcomes and tolerability with F-URS than SWL. We believe F-URS may have a great treatment prospect in this particular patient group.

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

Fragmentation and propulsive effect of shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of small renal calculi

Fragmentation and propulsive effect of shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of small renal calculi

The modern view on the surgical treatment of nephrolithiasis

Comparison of Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Flexible Ureterorenoscopy in the Treatment of 10–20 mm Lower Pole Stone: Prospective Non-randomized Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About