Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Urolithiasis 2/2014

01-04-2014 | Original Paper

Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm

Authors: Nevzat Can Sener, M. Abdurrahim Imamoglu, Okan Bas, Ufuk Ozturk, H. N. Goksel Goktug, Can Tuygun, Hasan Bakirtas

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to compare the success and complications of flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) with its advanced technology and the accomplished method of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the treatment of lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm. One hundred and forty patients were randomized as 70 undergoing SWL (Group 1) and 70 undergoing F-URS (Group 2). Patients were evaluated by plain X-ray and urinary ultrasound 1 week and after 3 months following SWL. The same procedure was done for F-URS patients 1 week after surgery and after 3 months. Success rates were established the day following the procedure and after 3 months. Fragmentation less than 3 mm was considered success. Mean operative time was 44 ± 7.4 min for Group 2 and mean fluoroscopy duration was 51 ± 12 s. In F-URS group, all the patients were stone free after 3 months (100 %). Group 1 had 2.7 ± 0.4 sessions of SWL. Sixty-four patients were stone free in that group after 3 months (91.5 %). The procedure yielded significant success in FURS group, even though patients underwent SWL for 2.7 ± 0.4 sessions and F-URS for 1 session (p < 0.05). With higher success and similar complication rates, fewer sessions per treatment, and advances in technology and experience, we believe F-URS has a potential to be the first treatment option over SWL in the future.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2013) European association of urology. Guidelines on urolithiasis Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2013) European association of urology. Guidelines on urolithiasis
4.
go back to reference Hautmann S, Friedrich MG, Fernandez S et al (2004) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopy for the removal of small distal ureteral stones. Urol Int 73:238–243PubMedCrossRef Hautmann S, Friedrich MG, Fernandez S et al (2004) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopy for the removal of small distal ureteral stones. Urol Int 73:238–243PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ilker Y, Tarcan T, Akdas A (1995) When should one perform shockwave lithotripsy for lower calyceal stones? J Endourol Endourol Soc 9:439–441CrossRef Ilker Y, Tarcan T, Akdas A (1995) When should one perform shockwave lithotripsy for lower calyceal stones? J Endourol Endourol Soc 9:439–441CrossRef
7.
go back to reference El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Abo-Elghar ME et al (2006) Predictors of success after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for renal calculi between 20 and 30 mm: a multivariate analysis model. Sci World J 6:2388–2395. doi:10.1100/tsw.2006.370 CrossRef El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Abo-Elghar ME et al (2006) Predictors of success after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for renal calculi between 20 and 30 mm: a multivariate analysis model. Sci World J 6:2388–2395. doi:10.​1100/​tsw.​2006.​370 CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lin C-C, Hsu Y-S, Chen K-K (2008) Predictive factors of lower calyceal stone clearance after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): the impact of radiological anatomy. J Chin Med Assoc JCMA 71:496–501. doi:10.1016/S1726-4901(08)70157-6 CrossRef Lin C-C, Hsu Y-S, Chen K-K (2008) Predictive factors of lower calyceal stone clearance after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): the impact of radiological anatomy. J Chin Med Assoc JCMA 71:496–501. doi:10.​1016/​S1726-4901(08)70157-6 CrossRef
10.
go back to reference D’Addessi A, Vittori M, Racioppi M et al (2012) Complications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary stones: to know and to manage them—a review. Sci World J 2012:619820. doi:10.1100/2012/619820 D’Addessi A, Vittori M, Racioppi M et al (2012) Complications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary stones: to know and to manage them—a review. Sci World J 2012:619820. doi:10.​1100/​2012/​619820
11.
go back to reference Wirth MP, Theiss M, Frohmüller HG (1992) Primary extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of staghorn renal calculi. Urol Int 48:71–75PubMedCrossRef Wirth MP, Theiss M, Frohmüller HG (1992) Primary extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of staghorn renal calculi. Urol Int 48:71–75PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJ, Lemmens WA, Debruyne FM (1991) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for large renal calculi: the role of ureteral stents. A randomized trial. J Urol 145:699–702PubMed Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJ, Lemmens WA, Debruyne FM (1991) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for large renal calculi: the role of ureteral stents. A randomized trial. J Urol 145:699–702PubMed
13.
go back to reference Dhar NB, Thornton J, Karafa MT, Streem SB (2004) A multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with subcapsular hematoma formation following electromagnetic shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 172:2271–2274PubMedCrossRef Dhar NB, Thornton J, Karafa MT, Streem SB (2004) A multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with subcapsular hematoma formation following electromagnetic shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 172:2271–2274PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Grasso M, Ficazzola M (1999) Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 162:1904–1908PubMedCrossRef Grasso M, Ficazzola M (1999) Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 162:1904–1908PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Tawfiek ER, Bagley DH (1999) Management of upper urinary tract calculi with ureteroscopic techniques. Urology 53:25–31PubMedCrossRef Tawfiek ER, Bagley DH (1999) Management of upper urinary tract calculi with ureteroscopic techniques. Urology 53:25–31PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Hollenbeck BK, Schuster TG, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS (2001) Flexible ureteroscopy in conjunction with in situ lithotripsy for lower pole calculi. Urology 58:859–863PubMedCrossRef Hollenbeck BK, Schuster TG, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS (2001) Flexible ureteroscopy in conjunction with in situ lithotripsy for lower pole calculi. Urology 58:859–863PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Schuster TG, Hollenbeck BK, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS (2002) Ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of lithotripsy in situ and after displacement. J Urol 168:43–45PubMedCrossRef Schuster TG, Hollenbeck BK, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS (2002) Ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole calculi: comparison of lithotripsy in situ and after displacement. J Urol 168:43–45PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Niţă G et al (2006) Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol Endourol Soc 20:179–185CrossRef Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Niţă G et al (2006) Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol Endourol Soc 20:179–185CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm
Authors
Nevzat Can Sener
M. Abdurrahim Imamoglu
Okan Bas
Ufuk Ozturk
H. N. Goksel Goktug
Can Tuygun
Hasan Bakirtas
Publication date
01-04-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Urolithiasis / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0618-z

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Urolithiasis 2/2014 Go to the issue