Volume : 08, Issue : 06, June – 2021
Title:
15.TO COMPARE THE STONE FREE RATE AT ONE WEEK OF IN SITU EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY (ESWL) AND URETERORENOSCOPIC (URS) MANIPULATION IN THE TREATMENT OF PROXIMAL URETERIC STONE.
Authors :
Dr.Mohsin Mustafa Memon, Dr.Farag Mohsen Saleh Abo Ali, Naveed Mahar, Dr.Sunil Kumar, Prof.Murli Lal
Abstract :
Objective: To compare the stone free rate at one week of in situ Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureterorenoscopic (URS) manipulation in the treatment of proximal ureteric stone.
Study Dsesign: Comparative cross-sectional.
Setting: Department of Urology & Nephrology Peoples University of Medical and Health Sciences (PUMHS), Nawabshah, Sindh.
Duration: Fourteen months from January 15, 2014 to March 15, 2015.
Material and methods: Study was conducted on a total number of 100 patients i.e. 50 patients in group A (dealt with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy) & 50 patients in group B (dealt with ureterorenoscopic manipulation). Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) was done under intravenous sedation as an outpatient procedure in supine position, and the electromagnetic lithotripter was used. Whereas, ureterorenoscopic (URS) manipulation was done under general anaesthesia, and an 8.0 Fr or 8.5 Fr semi rigid ureteroscope was used. A pneumatic (Swiss lithoclast) was used for intracorporeal lithotripsy. The stone free rate were compared between the two groups by taking a look into clinical factor such as the size of stone at one week after the procedures.
Complication rate, success rate, re-treatment rate and auxiliary procedures were compared in each group.
Results: A total of 100 patients were treated for upper ureteric calculi, the stone free rate for in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) was 52% (26 of 50) patients, and for Ureterorenoscopic (URS) was 60% (30 of 50) patients (P=0.008). Whereas, the retreatment rate was significantly greater in ESWL group then in URS group (ESWL % v/s URS %). No major complications were encountered in both groups.
Conclusion: Despite the fact that extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is considered by many urologist as the 1st line treatment for the proximal ureteric calculi, our study demonstrates that ureterorenoscopic manipulation (URS) with intracorporeal lithotripsy is a viable modality, and a safe alternative with an advantage of obtaining an early stone free status.
Keywords: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), Ureterorenoscopic (URS), proximal ureteric stone.
Cite This Article:
Please cite this article in press Mohsin Mustafa Memon et al., To Compare The Stone Free Rate At One Week Of In Situ Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) And Ureterorenoscopic (URS) Manipulation In The Treatment Of Proximal Ureteric Stone., Indo Am. J. P. Sci, 2021; 08(06).
Number of Downloads : 10
References:
1. Tipu SA, Malik HA, Mohhayuddin N, Sultan G, Hashim A, et al. Treatment of ureteric calculi use of Holmium: YAG Laser Lithotripsy versus pneumatic Lithoclast. J Pak Med Assoc. 2011; 57:440-3.
2. Rizvi SA, Naqvi SA, Hussain Z, Hashmi A, Hussain M, Zafar MN, et al. The management of stone disease. BJU Int. 2008; 89 Suppl. 1:62-8.
3. Teichman JM.Clinical practice. Acute renal colic from ureteral calculus. N Engl. J Med. 2013; 350:684-93.
4. Hussain M, Rizvi SA, Askari H, Sultan G, Lal M, Ali B, et al. Management of Stone Disease: 17 years experience of a stone clinic in a developing country. J Pak Med Assoc. 2009; 59:843-6.
5. Talati J, Khan LA, Noordzij JW, Mohammad N, Memon A, Hotiana MZ. The scope and place of ultrasound-monitored extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in a multimodality setting and the effect of experiential, audit-evoked changes on the management of ureteric calculi. Br J Urol. 2009; 73:480-6.
6. Premiger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck AC, Gallucci M, et al. 2013 Guideline for the Management of Ureteral Calculi. Eur. Urol. 2013; 172:2418-34.
7. Ather MH, Paryani J, Memon A, Sulaiman MN. A 10-years experience of managing ureteric calculi: changing trends towards endourological intervention-is there a role for open surgery. BJU Int. 2009; 88:173-7.
8. Stoller ML. Urinary Stone disease.In: Ttnagho EA, McAninch JW,editors. Smith”s general urology. USA: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2008. p. 246-77.
9. Fong YK, Ho SH, Peh OH, Ng FC, Lim PH, Quek PL, et al. Extracarporeal shock wave lithotripsy and intracorporeal lithotripsy for proximal ureteric calculi- a comparative assessment of efficacy and safety. Ann Acad. Med. Singapore. 2012; 33:80-3.
10. Leistner R, Wendt-Nordahl G, Grobholz R, Michel MS, Marlinghaus E, Kohrmann KU, et al. A new electromagnetic shock-wave generator “SLX-F2” with user-selectable dual focus size: ex vivo evaluation of renal injury. Urol. Res. 2012; 35:65-71.
11. Youssef RF, EL-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, El-Tabey NA, El-Hefnawy AS, Eraky I, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi (<20 mm): a comparative matched-pair study. Urology. 2009; 73:1184-7. Epub. 2009 Apr 10.
12. Jan H, Akbar I, Kamran H, Khan J. Frequency of renal stone disease in patient with urinary tract infection. J Ayub Med Coll. 2008; 20(1):60-2.
13. Lingeman JE, Mcateer JA, Gnessin E. Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique. Nat Rev Urol. 2009 Dec; 6(12):660-70.
14. Amanullah, Sheikh QA, Sheikh AR, Jalbani MH. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Efficacy of in situ echoguidance in upper and lower ureteral calculi. Professional Med J. 2008; 15(3):367-70.
15. S.Mustafa M, Ali-El-Din B. ‘Stenting in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy may enhance the passage of the fragments’. J. Pak medical assoc. 2009-March, 59(3): 141-3.
16. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al. 2013 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol. 2013; 178:2418-34.
17. Hollingsworth JM, Rogers MA, Kaufman SR, et al. Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2010; 368:1171-9.
18. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al. 2013 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol. 2013; 178:2418-34.
19. Hollingsworth JM, Rogers MA, Kaufman SR, et al. Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2010; 368:1171-9.
20. Ackermann DK, Fuhrimann R, Pfluger D, et al. Prognosis after extracarporeal shock wave lithotripsy of radiopaque renal calculi: a multivariate analysis. Eur. Urol. 2009; 25:105-9.
21. Connors BA, Evan AP, Blomgren PM, et al. Effect of initial shockwave voltage on shock wave lithotripsy-induced lesion size during step-wise voltage ramping. BJU Int. 2009; 103:104-7.
22. Kijvikai K, Haleblian GE, Preminger GM, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi: an old discussion revisited. J Urol. 2011; 178:1157–63.
23. Zanetti G, Lam JS, Greene TD, et al. Proximal Ureteral stones: Ureteroscopy versus shock wave lithotripsy treatment. Arch Italy Urol. Androl. 2011; 83(1):10–3.
24. Radulovic S, Vuksanovic A, Milenkovic-Petronic D, et al. Do stone size and impaction influence therapeutic approach to proximal ureteral stones? Vojnosanit Pregl. 2009; 66(2):129–33.
25. Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, et al. Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol. 2011; 172:1899–902.
26. Ziaee SA, Halimiasl P, Beigi FM, et al. Management of 10-15-mm proximal ureteral stones: ureteroscopy J Urol. 2008; 71:28–31.
27. Semins MJ, Trock BJ, Matlaga BR, et al. The safety of ureteroscopy during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2009; 181:139-143.
28. Kawano AM, Ohya K, Sekine H. Outpatient basis extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureter stones: Efficacy of the third generation lithotripter as the first line treatment. Int. J Urol. 2008; 15:210-5.
29. Hussain M, Rizvi SA, Askari H, et al. Management of stone disease: 17 years experience of a stone clinic in a developing country. J Pak Med Assoc. 2009; 59:843-6.
30. Tawfick ER. Treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscope with lithoclast. Int. Arch Med 2010; 3:3.