Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi

PURPOSE: We compared the efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treatment of distal ureteral calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 64 patients with solitary, radiopaque distal ureteral calculi 15 mm. or less in largest diameter were randomized to treatment with shock wave lithotripsy (32) using an HM3 lithotriptor (Dornier MedTech, Kennesaw, Georgia) or ureteroscopy (32). Patient and stone characteristics, treatment parameters, clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction and cost were assessed for each group. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable in regard to patient age, sex, body mass index, stone size, degree of hydronephrosis and time to treatment. Procedural and operating room times were statistically significantly shorter for the shock wave lithotripsy compared to the ureteroscopy group (34 and 72 versus 65 and 97 minutes, respectively). In addition, 94% of patients who underwent shock wave lithotripsy versus 75% who underwent ureteroscopy were discharged home the day of procedure. At a mean followup of 21 and 24 days for shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy, respectively, 91% of patients in each group had undergone imaging with a plain abdominal radiograph, and all studies showed resolution of the target stone. Minor complications occurred in 9% and 25% of the shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy groups, respectively (p value was not significant). No ureteral perforation or stricture occurred in the ureteroscopy group. Postoperative flank pain and dysuria were more severe in the ureteroscopy than shock wave lithotripsy group, although the differences were not statistically significant. Patient satisfaction was high, including 94% for shock wave lithotripsy and 87% for ureteroscopy (p value not significant). Cost favored ureteroscopy by $1,255 if outpatient treatment for both modalities was assumed. CONCLUSIONS: Ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy were associated with high success and low complication rates. However, shock wave lithotripsy required significantly less operating time, was more often performed on an outpatient basis, and showed a trend towards less flank pain and dysuria, fewer complications and quicker convalescence. Patient satisfaction was uniformly high in both groups. Although ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy are highly effective for treatment of distal ureteral stones, we believe that HM3 shock wave lithotripsy, albeit slightly more costly, is preferable to manipulation with ureteroscopy since it is equally efficacious, more efficient and less morbid.     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi: what a powerful machine can achieve

PURPOSE: We assessed the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL, Dornier Medical Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia) for distal ureteral calculi with the HM3 (Dornier Medical Systems, Inc.) lithotriptor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 585 consecutive patients with distal ureteral calculi were treated with ESWL using an unmodified HM3 lithotriptor. Of these patients 67 referred for treatment only for whom no followup was available were excluded from further analysis. The remaining 518 cases were followed until they were radiologically documented to be stone-free or considered treatment failures. Before ESWL additional procedures were performed in 144 patients, including stone push back, ureteral catheter or Double-J (Medical Engineering Corp., New York, New York) stent placement, percutaneous nephrostomy, ureteral endoscopic maneuvers or stone basket manipulation. A total of 374 patients needed no preliminary treatment before ESWL. RESULTS: Of the 518 patients 469 (91%) were successfully treated with 1 ESWL session, while 49 (9%) needed 2 or 3. Manipulation after ESWL was performed in 22 cases, including stent placement, percutaneous nephrostomy, ureteral endoscopic stone removal and a stone basket procedure. On day 1 after ESWL 327 patients (63%) were stone-free, 158 (30%) had less than 5 mm. fragments and 33 (7%) had more than 5 mm. fragments. At 3 months the stone-free rate increased to 97%. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that ESWL for distal ureteral calculi with the powerful unmodified HM3 lithotriptor has a high success rate with a low rate of minimally traumatic manipulations before and after intervention. Results in terms of the re-treatment and stone-free rates are superior to those of any other second or third generation lithotriptor and comparable to the results of the best ureteroscopic series.     

体外冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效比较

目的　比较体外冲击波碎石术 (ESWL)与输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术 (pneumaticlithotripsy ,PL)治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效和安全性。 方法　总结ESWL和PL治疗输尿管下段结石 3 75例的临床资料 ,其中ESWL组 190例 ,PL组 185例。结果　ESWL组单次碎石成功率为 60 .5 %(115 /190 ) ,PL组为 96.2 %(178/185 ) ;ESWL组术后 4周结石排净率为 66.3 %(12 6/190 ) ,PL组为 98.3 %(175 /178)。结论　PL治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效明显优于ESWL。     

输尿管结石行体外冲击波碎石治疗后发生输尿管狭窄的危险因素分析

目的探讨输尿管结石经体外冲击波碎石治疗后发生狭窄的危险因素。方法收集2006年7月至2011年7月就诊于我院首次行体外冲击波碎石治疗的输尿管结石患者的临床资料,先对所取临床指标进行单因素分析,然后进行Logistic多因素回归分析。结果共收集行体外冲击波碎石的输尿管结石患者174例,其中发生术后输尿管狭窄的患者15例,狭窄发生率为8.62%,单因素分析显示:结石长径、肾积水程度、结石嵌顿时间以及碎石次数与术后输尿管狭窄发生相关,多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示:结石长径、肾积水程度以及碎石次数是患者发生输尿管狭窄的独立危险因素。结论对于肾积水程度较重、结石长径较大、预期碎石次数较多的输尿管结石患者,行体外冲击波碎石后发生狭窄的可能性相对较高,在治疗选择上应更加慎重,提倡选择体外冲击波碎石之外更加安全有效的治疗方式。     

输尿管镜气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石110例

目的总结输尿管镜气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石的临床效果。方法采用F8/9.8 Wolf硬性输尿管镜、JUN—AIR气压弹道碎石机治疗110例输尿管结石。结果输尿管镜直视下一次碎石成功105例，成功率95．5％（105／110），1～6周内结石全部排净。2例因置镜失败改开放手术，3例输尿管上段结石上移至肾脏行ESWL2例，口服排石药物治疗1例。术后泌尿系感染5例，轻度肉眼血尿1～3d。结论输尿管镜气压弹道碎石是治疗输尿管中、下段结石的有效方法之一，具有碎石率高、安全、并发症少、操作简单的优点。     

电磁式体外冲击波碎石的应用体会和输尿管镜碎石治疗输尿管结石的差别

目的比较电磁式体外冲击波碎石与输尿管镜碎石治疗输尿管结石的效果。方法选择我科室2015年7月至2017年10月就诊的150例输尿管结石患者,随机分为2组,体外冲击波组75例采用电磁式体外冲击波碎石术治疗,输尿管镜组75例采用输尿管镜碎石术治疗,对比两组临床疗效、结石大小、手术时间及并发症发生情况。结果体外冲击波组结石直径1 cm碎石成功率为95.24%,输尿管镜组结石直径1 cm为73.33%,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05),结石直径≥1 cm且2 cm和结石直径≥2 cm两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05),体外冲击波组总碎石成功率合计88.00%,输尿管镜组为72.00%,两组差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);体外冲击波组术后并发症发生率为9.33%,输尿管镜组为21.33%,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论电磁式体外冲击波碎石治疗对于1.0 cm的输尿管结石效果较好,且减少并发症发生。     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized study

PURPOSE: We performed a prospective randomized study to determine appropriate first line treatment for distal ureteral stones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 1996 and October 1997, 80 patients with distal ureteral stones (40 smaller than 5 mm. and 40 larger than 5 mm.) were randomized and treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy with a 9.5 or 6.5F semirigid ureteroscope. RESULTS: Ureteroscopy was significantly better in terms of operative time, fluoroscopy time and time to achieve a stone-free state. The smaller the stones, the greater the difference between the 2 treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: For distal ureteral stones we recommend ureteroscopy as first line treatment.     

Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

PURPOSE: We compared the safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy with intracorporeal holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (Dornier Medical Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia) for proximal ureteral calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 67 patients underwent 81 primary procedures, including in situ ESWL with a DoLi 50 lithotriptor (Dornier Medical Systems, Inc.) or ureteroscopy combined with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi. RESULTS: Of the primary procedures 81 involved proximal ureteral calculi, including 35 done for calculi 1 cm. or greater. The initial stone-free rate in patients with calculi 1 cm. or greater was 93% for ureteroscopy combined with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy and 50% for in situ ESWL. The efficiency quotient for treating proximal ureteral calculi 1 cm. or greater was calculated as 0.76 for ureteroscopic lithotripsy and 0.43 for ESWL. For proximal ureteral calculi less than 1 cm. the initial stone-free rate was 100% and 80% for ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and ESWL, respectively. The efficiency quotient was calculated as 0.81 for ureteroscopic lithotripsy and 0.72 for ESWL for treating proximal ureteral calculi less than 1 cm. There were no major complications in either group and all procedures were performed on an outpatient basis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that ureteroscopy combined with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy is an acceptable treatment modality for all proximal ureteral calculi and excellent results are achieved for calculi 1 cm. or larger. Although the stone-free rate was better for smaller stones with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy, efficiency quotients were similar. Therefore, ESWL should remain first line therapy for proximal ureteral calculi less than 1 cm. because of less morbidity, and a lesser anesthesia and analgesic requirement.     

输尿管上段结石选择体外冲击波碎石的新适应证

目的 评价以结石直径×停留时间系数为标准选择ESWL治疗输尿管上段结石适应证的效果.方法 回顾性分析2009年1月至2011年5月收治的180例输尿管上段结石患者的临床资料,男109例,女71例.年龄21 ～ 65岁,平均39岁.结石直径0.5 ～1.6 cm,平均(0.9±0.2)cm.结石在同一部位停留时间1d～5个月,平均(12.6±9.7)d.X线检查均为阳性结石,左侧93例,右侧87例.以结石直径为标准分为≥1 cm组75例和＜1 cm组105例.以结石直径×停留时间系数为新标准分为≥1组101例和＜1组79例.停留时间系数以1周为基准单位,结石停留时间每增加1周,系数增加0.1.比较同一标准不同分组间和不同标准对应分组间ESWL后碎石排净率.结果 新标准＜1组排净率为96.2％ (76/79),结石直径＜1 cm组排净率为81.9％(86/105),两组比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).新标准≥1组排净率为60.4％(61/101),结石直径≥1 cm组排净率为68.0％ (51/75),两组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结石直径＜1 cm组中26例因结石停留时间长依照新标准进入≥1组,结石排净率为38.5％(10/26),显著低于结石直径≥1 cm组排净率,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 结石直径×停留时间系数作为新标准选择输尿管上段结石ESWL的适应证,综合考虑了结石直径和结石停留时间两项因素,新标准＜1组ESWL碎石效果显著高于结石直径＜1 cm组.     

经尿道输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石

目的探讨输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石的疗效。方法输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石56例，尿管上段结石3例，中段结石32例，下段结石21例中结石位于左侧30例，右侧25例，双侧1例。结果56例输尿管结石粉碎53例（94．6％），1例结石移动至肾盂未完成手术，1例置镜失败而改行开放手术，1例发生输尿管下段穿孔，经放置双J管内引流后改行ESWL治疗。30例（53．6％）术后有肉眼或镜下血尿，所有病例无尿路感染、输尿管黏膜剥脱、撕裂及狭窄等严重并发症。结论输尿管镜直视下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石，疗效确切、安全、组织损伤小，并发症少，可作为输尿管中段和下段结石的首选治疗方法。     

体外冲击波碎石治疗单发输尿管结石及疗效预测

目的探讨体外冲击波碎石术（ESWL）治疗输尿管结石疗效的影响因素,并建立预测模型。方法2008年1月至2011年2月接受ESWL治疗的输尿管结石患者1116例,随访3个月。用X^2检验或t检验、秩和检验进行单因素分析来研究患者性别、年龄、身高、体重、病程、临床症状和结石特征等因素与疗效的关系,多因素分析采用Logistic逐步回归分析（Forward：LR法）,建立Logistic回归预测模型。结果ESWL单次治疗输尿管结石成功率84．3％（941／1116）。单因素分析发现结石部位、结石长短径及肾绞痛对疗效均有影响。Logistic回归分析则显示结石部位、结石长短径及肾绞痛决定治疗的成功率,预测模型对碎石成功率的解释力良好（X^2=117．434,P〈0．001）,并通过拟合优度检验（X^2=5．261,P=0．729）,预测总体准确率为83．8％。结论结石部位、结石长短径及肾绞痛是ESWL治疗输尿管结石成功率的重要决定因素。     

输尿管下段结石气压弹道碎石与体外冲击波碎石术的比较

目的 :比较输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术 (PL)与体外冲击波碎石术 (ESWL)治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效。方法 :对经PL(PL组 )和ESWL(ESWL组 )治疗的输尿管下段结石患者的临床资料进行比较。结果 :PL组单次碎石成功率为 96 .2 % ,ESWL组为 6 0 .5 % (P <0 .0 5 ) ;PL组术后 4周结石排净率为 98.3% ,ESWL组为6 6 .3%。两组比较 ,差异有统计学意义 (P <0 .0 5 )。结论 :输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效明显优于ESWL。     

Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi: a prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes

Objective

To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with objective outcomes after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic surgery (URS) for ureteral calculi (UC).

Methods

We prospectively evaluated 160 consecutive patients who underwent SWL (n = 65) or URS (n = 95) for a single radiopaque UC ranging from 4 to 15 mm. For patients who underwent URS, a 6-Fr double-J stent was routinely placed for 2 weeks after surgery. To examine PRO, we used a self-administered nonvalidated questionnaire evaluating overall satisfaction and PRO in four domains (pain, hematuria, voiding symptom, and time to return to routine activity) and willingness to undergo the treatment procedure again. Propensity-score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounding by discrepancy of pretreatment parameters between groups. Stone-free rates (SFRs) and complications were also compared.

Results

SFRs after the first, second, and third sessions of SWL were 61.5, 81.0, and 93.5 %, respectively. SFR after URS was 100 %, which was significantly better than SFRs for third-session SWL (p = 0.023). Complications were comparable. By propensity-score matching analysis, overall satisfaction was similar between groups, whereas PRO for voiding symptom and time to return to routine activity were significantly better in the SWL group (all p < 0.05). The two groups were not different in willingness to undergo the same procedure again.

Conclusions

Despite significantly higher SFR after URS for UC, overall patient satisfaction was comparable after SWL and URS, meanwhile PRO of the SWL group was better than URS for voiding symptom and time to return to routine activity. In addition of objective treatment outcomes, PROs should be considered in counseling treatment methods for UC.     

Extracorporeal shock-wave versus pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy in treatment of lower ureteral calculi

Aim: To compare the efficacy and complications of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) and pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi. Methods: From August 1997 to June 1999, 210 patients with calculi in the distal third of the ureter were treated with SWL and the other 180 with URS. The stones were fragmented with either HB-ESWL-V lithotripter or JML-93 pneumatic lithotripter through Wolf 7.5～9.0 Fr ureteroscope. The outcome was assessed in terms of stone clearance rate, re-treatment rate and complication incidence. Results: The stone clearance rate was 78.1% with SWL and 93.3 % with URS (P<0.05). SWL had a re-treatment rate of 11.9 %, vs 2.2 % in the URS group (P<.05). URS caused ureteral perforation in 3.3% of patients, while it was 0 with SWL (P<0.05). The differences in the incidence of other complications such as infection and stricture between the two groups were insignificant. Conclusion: Though the selection of these two options depends on equip     

Ovarian apoptosis after shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones

The objective of this study is to identify any apoptotic effect of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for distal ureteral stones on ovarian tissue. Twenty-one female New Zealand White rabbits were divided into three groups of seven rabbits each: I (control), and II, III (treated and killed 14 and 28 days after SWL, respectively). The left distal ureteral segment of the anesthetized (ketamine HCl, 20 mg/kg) animals in groups II and III was exposed to 1,500 shock waves at 17 kV. Localization of the distal ureteral segments was achieved following contrast medium (Iohexol 300 mg of I/ml) injection. The animals were killed on day 14 or 28 after SWL, and the ovaries were removed. The follicle number with apoptotic changes in ovarian tissue was compared with control group. Apoptotic changes were determined by terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT)-mediated dUTP nick end-labeling (TUNEL) method. No increased apoptosis was detected in all groups. The mean number of TUNEL-positive follicle in groups I, II and III was 9.3 ± 2.9, 8.1 ± 2.6 and 8.7 ± 2.9, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences among all groups regarding the number of TUNEL-positive follicle (P = 0.647). Also, no histomorphological change other than apoptosis was detected in the study groups. In conclusion, SWL treatment for distal ureteral stones does not induce apoptotic changes on ovarian tissue.     

Ureteroscopy and pneumatic lithotripsy, followed by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of distal ureteral stones

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively reviewed our experience with retrograde ureteroscopy (URS) and a pneumatic lithotriptor in 160 patients with distal ureteral stones to determine whether prior extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a limiting factor in the ureteroscopic procedure. METHODS: From January 1999 to September 2000, we performed URS and pneumatic lithotripsy in 160 patients with distal ureteral stones. Seventy-four patients were treated with URS primarily (Group 1), while the remaining 86 patients received URS only after ESWL had failed (Group 2). For URS and lithotripsy, we used a 9.5 French rigid instrument and vibrolith (Elmed, Ankara, Turkey). RESULTS: In Group 1, 73 of 74 patients (98.6%) were treated successfully by URS alone, as were 81 of 86 patients (94.4%) in Group 2. Impacted stones were also observed in 17 patients from Group 2. In these patients, endoscopic observation revealed edematous inflammation above and below the calculus. Ureteral perforation occurred in one patient from Group 2, which required surgical repair. There was no significant difference in the stone-free rates of the two groups t = 1.4 < 1.96t( infinity,0.05). CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate that when ESWL fails, URS and pneumatic lithotripsy is as safe and effective as primary URS. Pneumatic lithotripsy also seems to be an effective treatment modality for impacted stones.     

Ureteral stenting after ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a multi-institutional prospective randomized controlled study assessing pain, outcomes and complications

PURPOSE: We compare postoperative pain, stone-free rates and complications after ureteroscopic treatment of distal ureteral calculi with or without the use of ureteral stents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 113 patients with distal ureteral calculi amenable to ureteroscopic treatment were prospectively randomized into stented (53) and unstented (60) groups. Stones were managed with semirigid ureteroscopes with or without distal ureteral dilation and/or intracorporeal lithotripsy. Preoperative and postoperative pain questionnaires were obtained from each patient. Patients with stents had them removed 3 to 10 days postoperatively. Radiographic followup was performed postoperatively to assess stone-free rates and evidence of obstruction. RESULTS: Six patients randomized to the unstented group were withdrawn from the study after significant intraoperative ureteral trauma was recognized, including 3 ureteral perforations, that required ureteral stent placement, leaving 53 with stents and 54 without for analysis. Patients with stents had statistically significantly more postoperative flank pain (p = 0.005), bladder pain (p <0.001), urinary symptoms (p = 0.002), overall pain (p <0.001) and total narcotic use (p <0.001) compared to the unstented group. Intraoperative ureteral dilation or intracorporeal lithotripsy did not statistically significantly affect postoperative pain or narcotic use in either group (p >0.05 in all cases). Overall mean stone size in our study was 6.6 mm. There were 4 (7.4%) patients without stents who required postoperative readmission to the hospital secondary to flank pain. All patients (85%) who underwent imaging postoperatively were without evidence of obstruction or ureteral stricture on followup imaging (mean followup plus or minus standard deviation 1.8 +/- 1.5 months), and the stone-free rate was 99.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Uncomplicated ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi with or without intraoperative ureteral dilation can safely be performed without placement of a ureteral stent. Patients without stents had significantly less pain, fewer urinary symptoms and decreased narcotic use postoperatively.     

气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石

目的 探讨输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石的效果。方法 应用输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石180例。男127例，女53例，年龄14～62岁，平均38岁。输尿管上段结石18例，中段64例，下段98例。结石直径0．5～2．3cm，平均0．7cm。合并患侧肾积水89例，其中1例女性双侧输尿管下段结石并梗阻、双肾积水，肾功能不全。结果 180例输尿管结石粉碎率98．3％(177例)，1次彻底清除率91．7％(165例)，3例结石移至肾盂者未完成手术，12例术终输尿管壁残留结石粉末，术后4周IVU复查，残石已排空。67例(37．0％)术后有肉眼或镜下血尿，多于1～2d内消失。180例均无穿孔、感染等并发症。结论 输尿管镜直视下气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石确切、安全、组织损伤小，清除彻底、并发症少，可作为输尿管中段和下段结石的首选治疗方法。     

输尿管镜钬激光治疗输尿管结石53例

目的：探讨输尿管镜钬激光治疗输尿管结石的有效性和安全性。方法：采用输尿管镜钬激光技术治疗53例(56侧)输尿管结石，其中输尿管上段结石9侧，中段结石11侧，下段结石36侧。结果：输尿管上、中、下段结石的排净率分别为89％、91％、92％，并发症为7％(4侧)。结论：输尿管镜钬激光是治疗输尿管结石的有效、安全的方法。