Korean J Urol.  2009 Sep;50(9):884-891.

Comparison of Treatment Efficacy between Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopic Stone Removal for Lower Ureteral Stones

• Kim ES
• Jang SH
• Son JH

Abstract

PURPOSE
We compared the efficacy and patient satisfaction between shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic removal of stone (URS) for the treatment of lower ureteral stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 223 patients who were treated for lower ureteral stones from August 2006 to January 2009. SWL and URS were performed in 47 and 176 patients, respectively. After treatment, the patients' subjective inconvenience/pain and their satisfaction with the treatment process were estimated by questionnaire. We analyzed success rates, complication rates, inconvenience/pain scores, and satisfaction scores for each group of patients. RESULTS: The overall success rates of SWL and URS were 82.9% and 97.7%, respectively (p=0.001). The complication rates of SWL and URS were 8.5% and 10.8%, respectively (p=0.162). The satisfaction scores of SWL and URS were 7.4 and 9.2, respectively (p=0.001). Whereas 87.5% of the URS group preferred the same treatment in case of a recurrence of ureteral stones, only 68% of the SWL group preferred the same treatment in the future (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: URS was more successful and satisfactory to the patients with lower ureteral stones. Although both SWL and URS were highly effective for treatment of distal ureteral stones, we believe that URS is the first-line treatment modality for lower ureteral stones.

Keyword

Ureteroscopy; Lithotripsy; Satisfaction

MeSH Terms

Humans
Lithotripsy
Patient Satisfaction
Recurrence
Shock
Treatment Outcome
Ureter
Ureteroscopy

Reference

1. Lee F, Patel HR, Emberton M. The 'top 10' urological procedures: a study of hospital episodes statistics 1998-99. BJU Int. 2002. 90:1–6.

2. Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E. Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. Lancet. 1980. 2:1265–1268.

3. Chaussy C, Schmiedt E. Shock wave treatment for stones in the upper urinary tract. Urol Clin North Am. 1983. 10:743–750.

4. Kim HH, Noh JH. Comparison of cost and clinical outcome for ureteral stones larger than 1cm; extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Korean J Urol. 2005. 46:1141–1146.

5. Byeon SS, Jeon SS, Lee HW, Park EC, Lee JH, Kwak C, et al. Ureteroscopic manipulation for ureteral calculi: comparison with ESWL. Korean J Urol. 1996. 37:1124–1131.

6. Lotan Y, Gettman MT, Roehrborn CG, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. Management of ureteral calculi: a cost comparison and decision making analysis. J Urol. 2002. 167:1621–1629.

7. Kapoor DA, Leech JE, Yap WT, Rose JF, Kabler R, Mowad JJ. Cost and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1992. 148:1095–1096.

8. Candace FG, Amy EK, Matthew TG. Long-term follow-up of pediatric shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2008. 179(4 Suppl):383.

9. Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, Kuo R, Preminger GM, Nadler RB, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol. 2008. 179(5):Suppl. S69–S73.

10. Pérez-Castro Ellendt E, Martinez-Pineiro JA. Transurethral ureteroscopy. A current urological procedure. Arch Esp Urol. 1980. 33:445–460.

11. Turk RM, Jenkins AD. A comparison of ureteroscopy to in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1999. 161:45–46.

12. Dretler SP. Management of the lower ureteral stone. AUA Update Series. 1995. 14:62–67.

13. Kim KH, Shim BS. The comparison of efficacy of ureteroscopic removal and shockwave lithotripsy in lower ureteral stones. Korean J Urol. 2001. 42:905–909.

14. Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Dretler SP, Kahn RI, Lingeman JE, et al. Ureteral stones Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. The American Urological Association. J Urol. 1997. 158:1915–1921.

15. Chaussy CG, Fuchs GJ. Current state and future developments of noninvasive treatment of human urinary stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1989. 141:782–789.

16. Choi HW, Kim SD, Kim DB, Sohn DW, Kim SW, Cho YH. Effectiveness of emergency ureteroscopic lithotripsy for distal ureter stones. Korean J Urol. 2008. 49:257–261.

17. Pearle MS, Nadler R, Bercowsky E, Chen C, Dunn A, Figenshau RS, et al. Prospective randonmized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol. 2001. 166:1255–1260.