Image not available

Rabani SM et al, 2013: Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Comparative Clinical Trial Between Transureteral Lithotripsy (TUL) and Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL)

Rabani SM, Moosavizadeh A
Beheshti Teaching Hospital, Yasouj University of Medical Sciences, Yasouj, IR Iran.


Abstract

BACKGROUND: A review of the related medical journals indicates that there is no definite evidence-based option for managing large proximal ureteral stones, although many procedures such as transureteral lithotripsy (TUL), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and open ureterolithotomy are currently used to treat this urological problem.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we tried to determine the most appropriate treatment plan for proximal ureteral stones larger than 12 mm by comparing the two most commonly used procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February 2005 and April 2011, 62 patients including 40 males and 22 females (mean age 39.5 years, range 19 to 64) with proximal ureteral stones larger than 12 mm (12-26 mm) with a mean size of 17.64 mm were prospectively divided into two groups consisting of 32 patients who underwent TUL (group A) and 30 who underwent SWL (group B). In unsuccessful cases, repeat SWL or TUL was planned. Patients who could not tolerate the lithotomy position, younger than 18 years, had undergone coagulopathy, had concurrent renal and ureteral stones, were pregnant, or had sepsis were excluded from this study.

RESULTS: Stone access was successful in 28 patients and the treatment was efficient in 18 patients (56.25%) in group A. For the patients with successful stone access but unsuccessful TUL, a DJ was inserted and a second ureteroscopic intervention was performed. The second intervention was successful in 7 patients (21.87). SWL was successful in 14 patients (46.66%) in the first attempt and in 7 additional patients in the second intervention (23.33%).

CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we showed different success rates for SWL and TUL because of the larger size of the stones. We achieved a success rate of 56.25% in the first attempt in the TUL group, and the overall success rate (after the second TUL) was 78.12%. In comparison, the SWL group had a success rate of 46.66% in the first attempt, and the overall success rate (after the second SWL) was 69.96%.

Nephrourol Mon. 2012 Summer;4(3):556-9. doi: 10.5812/numonthly.3936. Epub 2012 Jun 20.
PMID:23573485[PubMed] PMCID:PMC3614297

Rate this blog entry:
0
 

Comments 1

Peter Alken on Monday, 26 August 2013 12:59

In the text it says "The difference in the proportion of success between the two groups was significant (Table 1) " In table the p value for the success rates of SWL (63,3% ) and for TUL ( 78,1%) is 0,2. This does not fit to the numbers in the abstract. There is no additional information in the article that is not included in the abstract.

Peter Alken

In the text it says "The difference in the proportion of success between the two groups was significant (Table 1) " In table the p value for the success rates of SWL (63,3% ) and for TUL ( 78,1%) is 0,2. This does not fit to the numbers in the abstract. There is no additional information in the article that is not included in the abstract. Peter Alken
Guest
Wednesday, 23 August 2017
STORZ MEDICAL AG
Lohstampfestrasse 8
8274 Tägerwilen
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (0)71 677 45 45
Fax: +41 (0)71 677 45 05

www.storzmedical.com
Personal data
Address
Contact data
Message