Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

COMPARISON OF SUCCESS OF EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY (ESWL) AND LASER URETERORENOSCOPY IN PROXIMAL URETERIC STONES

View through CrossRef
Managing ureteral stones to achieve complete stone clearance with minimal patient morbidity involves several therapeutic approaches. The commonly used methods include extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and open ureterolithotomy. However, definitive evidence-based options for managing large proximal ureteral stones are lacking. Objective: To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and laser ureterorenoscopy (URS) success rates in treating proximal ureteric stones. Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Urology & Renal Transplantation at Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur, from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. One hundred four patients, aged 20 to 60, with single proximal ureteric stones measuring 8-15 mm, were included. Patients with pyonephrosis, sepsis, bleeding disorders, solitary kidney, previous open ureterolithotomy, chronic renal failure, proteinuria, recurrent urinary tract infections, congenital urinary tract obstruction, bladder outflow obstruction, chronic liver disease, or a history of chronic drug usage were excluded. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group A underwent URS lithotripsy with DJ stent placement, while Group B underwent ESWL with DJ stent placement. A single surgeon performed all procedures. Pre-operative antibiotics and analgesics were administered to all patients. Stone clearance was assessed two weeks post-procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate methods, with a p-value ≤ 0.05 considered significant. Results: The mean age of patients in Group A was 37.52 ± 11.20 years, and in Group B was 36.73 ± 10.57 years. Most patients (75, 72.12%) were between 20 and 40. Out of the 104 patients, 63 (60.58%) were male, and 41 (39.42%) were female, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.7:1. Complete stone clearance was achieved in 44 (84.62%) patients in Group A (URS group) and 30 (57.69%) patients in Group B (ESWL group), with a statistically significant p-value of 0.002. The study concluded that the stone clearance rate after laser ureterorenoscopy (URS) is significantly higher than extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for proximal ureteric stones.
Title: COMPARISON OF SUCCESS OF EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY (ESWL) AND LASER URETERORENOSCOPY IN PROXIMAL URETERIC STONES
Description:
Managing ureteral stones to achieve complete stone clearance with minimal patient morbidity involves several therapeutic approaches.
The commonly used methods include extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and open ureterolithotomy.
However, definitive evidence-based options for managing large proximal ureteral stones are lacking.
Objective: To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and laser ureterorenoscopy (URS) success rates in treating proximal ureteric stones.
Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Urology & Renal Transplantation at Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur, from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021.
One hundred four patients, aged 20 to 60, with single proximal ureteric stones measuring 8-15 mm, were included.
Patients with pyonephrosis, sepsis, bleeding disorders, solitary kidney, previous open ureterolithotomy, chronic renal failure, proteinuria, recurrent urinary tract infections, congenital urinary tract obstruction, bladder outflow obstruction, chronic liver disease, or a history of chronic drug usage were excluded.
Patients were randomized into two groups: Group A underwent URS lithotripsy with DJ stent placement, while Group B underwent ESWL with DJ stent placement.
A single surgeon performed all procedures.
Pre-operative antibiotics and analgesics were administered to all patients.
Stone clearance was assessed two weeks post-procedure.
Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate methods, with a p-value ≤ 0.
05 considered significant.
Results: The mean age of patients in Group A was 37.
52 ± 11.
20 years, and in Group B was 36.
73 ± 10.
57 years.
Most patients (75, 72.
12%) were between 20 and 40.
Out of the 104 patients, 63 (60.
58%) were male, and 41 (39.
42%) were female, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.
7:1.
Complete stone clearance was achieved in 44 (84.
62%) patients in Group A (URS group) and 30 (57.
69%) patients in Group B (ESWL group), with a statistically significant p-value of 0.
002.
The study concluded that the stone clearance rate after laser ureterorenoscopy (URS) is significantly higher than extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for proximal ureteric stones.

Related Results

Outcome Of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (Eswl) Of Lower Ureteric Stones
Outcome Of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (Eswl) Of Lower Ureteric Stones
Urolithiasis is a prevailing urological condition, with ureteric stones affecting around 22% of cases, mostly causing severe pain and other complications. Surveillance, medical the...
Stented and Non-Stented Techniques in Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithoplasty for Upper Ureteral Stones<b></b>
Stented and Non-Stented Techniques in Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithoplasty for Upper Ureteral Stones<b></b>
Background and Objectives: Extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a non-invasive technique for treating patients with renal calculi. It fragments the stone to smaller siz...
COMPARISON OF THE SUCCESS OF EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY (ESWL) WITH AND WITHOUT DJ STENTING IN PROXIMAL URETERIC STONE
COMPARISON OF THE SUCCESS OF EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY (ESWL) WITH AND WITHOUT DJ STENTING IN PROXIMAL URETERIC STONE
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: There is disagreement in the use of ureteral double-J stent before the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), although most of the urologists sug...
Factors Affecting the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy in Urinary Stone Treatment
Factors Affecting the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy in Urinary Stone Treatment
Background and aim: The recurrence of urinary stones occurs in two thirds of patients within a 20-year period, making urinary stones a common pathology. Among urology pathologies, ...
LASER LITHOTRIPSY VS PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPSY IN URETERIC STONE REMOVAL: A CONTROLLED TRIAL
LASER LITHOTRIPSY VS PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPSY IN URETERIC STONE REMOVAL: A CONTROLLED TRIAL
Ureteric stones represent a significant proportion of urolithiasis cases and are a common cause of emergency department visits worldwide. Minimally invasive endourological techniqu...
Efficacy of Holmium Laser vs Pneumatic Lithotripsy for Mid and Distal Ureteric Stones Above 10 Mm Size
Efficacy of Holmium Laser vs Pneumatic Lithotripsy for Mid and Distal Ureteric Stones Above 10 Mm Size
Abstract Introduction Over the past 15 years, ureteral stone treatment has evolved significantly. Management now depends on stone size, location, composition, patient circu...

Back to Top