Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser lithotripsy

Objectives: We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and outcome of shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy in the management of the proximal ureteral stones of diameter exceeding 15 mm. Methods: During the 2009−2014 study period, 147 patients presenting with the prox...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hamdy Aboutaleb, Mohamed Omar, Shady Salem, Mohamed Elshazly
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2016-12-01
Series:SAGE Open Medicine
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312116685180
id doaj-3d646d5154cb41b9aca6ef4be7fc8f17
record_format Article
spelling doaj-3d646d5154cb41b9aca6ef4be7fc8f172020-11-25T01:27:14ZengSAGE PublishingSAGE Open Medicine2050-31212016-12-01410.1177/205031211668518010.1177_2050312116685180Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser lithotripsyHamdy AboutalebMohamed OmarShady SalemMohamed ElshazlyObjectives: We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and outcome of shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy in the management of the proximal ureteral stones of diameter exceeding 15 mm. Methods: During the 2009−2014 study period, 147 patients presenting with the proximal ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter were treated. Both shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy were offered for our patients. A 6/8.9 Fr semirigid ureteroscope was used in conjunction with a holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser. The stone-free rate was assessed at 2 weeks and 3 months post-treatment. All patients were evaluated for stone-free status, operation time, hospital stay, perioperative complications, and auxiliary procedures. Results: Of the 147 patients who took part in this study, 66 (45%) had undergone shock wave lithotripsy and 81 (55%) underwent ureteroscopy. At the 3-month follow-up, the overall stone-free rate in the shock wave lithotripsy group was 39/66 (59%) compared to 70/81 (86.4%) in the ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy group. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy achieved a highly significant stone-free rate ( p  = 0.0002), and the mean operative time, auxiliary procedures, and postoperative complication rates were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: In terms of the management of proximal ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter, ureteroscopy achieved a greater stone-free rate and is considered the first-line of management. Shock wave lithotripsy achieved lower stone-free rate, and it could be used in selected cases.https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312116685180
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Hamdy Aboutaleb
Mohamed Omar
Shady Salem
Mohamed Elshazly
spellingShingle Hamdy Aboutaleb
Mohamed Omar
Shady Salem
Mohamed Elshazly
Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser lithotripsy
SAGE Open Medicine
author_facet Hamdy Aboutaleb
Mohamed Omar
Shady Salem
Mohamed Elshazly
author_sort Hamdy Aboutaleb
title Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser lithotripsy
title_short Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser lithotripsy
title_full Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser lithotripsy
title_fullStr Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser lithotripsy
title_full_unstemmed Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser lithotripsy
title_sort management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser lithotripsy
publisher SAGE Publishing
series SAGE Open Medicine
issn 2050-3121
publishDate 2016-12-01
description Objectives: We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and outcome of shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy in the management of the proximal ureteral stones of diameter exceeding 15 mm. Methods: During the 2009−2014 study period, 147 patients presenting with the proximal ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter were treated. Both shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy were offered for our patients. A 6/8.9 Fr semirigid ureteroscope was used in conjunction with a holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser. The stone-free rate was assessed at 2 weeks and 3 months post-treatment. All patients were evaluated for stone-free status, operation time, hospital stay, perioperative complications, and auxiliary procedures. Results: Of the 147 patients who took part in this study, 66 (45%) had undergone shock wave lithotripsy and 81 (55%) underwent ureteroscopy. At the 3-month follow-up, the overall stone-free rate in the shock wave lithotripsy group was 39/66 (59%) compared to 70/81 (86.4%) in the ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy group. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy achieved a highly significant stone-free rate ( p  = 0.0002), and the mean operative time, auxiliary procedures, and postoperative complication rates were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: In terms of the management of proximal ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter, ureteroscopy achieved a greater stone-free rate and is considered the first-line of management. Shock wave lithotripsy achieved lower stone-free rate, and it could be used in selected cases.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312116685180
work_keys_str_mv AT hamdyaboutaleb managementofupperureteralstonesexceeding15mmindiametershockwavelithotripsyversussemirigidureteroscopywithholmiumyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserlithotripsy
AT mohamedomar managementofupperureteralstonesexceeding15mmindiametershockwavelithotripsyversussemirigidureteroscopywithholmiumyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserlithotripsy
AT shadysalem managementofupperureteralstonesexceeding15mmindiametershockwavelithotripsyversussemirigidureteroscopywithholmiumyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserlithotripsy
AT mohamedelshazly managementofupperureteralstonesexceeding15mmindiametershockwavelithotripsyversussemirigidureteroscopywithholmiumyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserlithotripsy
_version_ 1725105978683162624