Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 539   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 88-92

Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy


Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mubarak Al-Kabir Hospital, Ministry of Health, Hawally, Kuwait

Correspondence Address:
Mostafa Khalil
Mubarak Al-Kabir Hospital, PO Box 43787, Hawally 32052
Kuwait
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.110004

PMID: 23798864

Rights and Permissions

Objective: Prospective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy with Holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy (URSL) as a primary treatment for impacted stone in the proximal ureter. Patients and Methods: A total of 82 patients with a single impacted stone in the proximal ureter were included in the study. Patients were allocated into two groups according to patient preference for either procedure. The first group included 37 patients who were treated by SWL and the second group included 45 patients treated by URSL. The preoperative data and treatment outcomes of both procedures were compared and analyzed. Results: There was no difference as regards to patient and stone characters between the two groups. There was significantly higher mean session number and re-treatment rate in the SWL group in comparison to URSL group (1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.02 ± 0.15 session, and 43.2% vs. 2.2%, respectively). At one month, the stone-free rate of the URSL group was statistically significantly higher than that of the SWL group (80% vs. 67.6%, respectively). The stone-free rate at three months was still higher in the URSL group, but without statistically significant difference (80.2% vs. 78.4%, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of complications between the SWL and URSL (24.3% vs. 15.6%, respectively). Conclusion: Both procedures can be used effectively and safely as a primary treatment for impacted stone in the proximal ureter; however, the URSL has a significantly higher initial stone-free rate and lower re-treatment rate.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4447    
    Printed86    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded606    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal