A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SUPINE TRANSGLUTEAL EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPSY AND URETEROSCOPY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISTAL URETERIC STONES

被引:0
|
作者
Ramaraju, Karunamoorthy [1 ]
Rajan, Karthik [1 ]
Kanagaraju, Arivazhagan [1 ]
Chennakrishnan, Ilamparuthi [1 ]
机构
[1] Madras Med Coll & Govt Gen Hosp, Dept Urol, Madras, Tamil Nadu, India
来源
JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCIENCES-JEMDS | 2016年 / 5卷 / 77期
关键词
ESWL; Ureteroscopy; Distal Ureteric Stones;
D O I
10.14260/jemds/2016/1282
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
The ureteral calculus in general presents as acute colicky pain and the aim of treatment is to achieve complete stone clearance with minimal morbidity for the patient. Of the available treatment options for the management of lower ureteric stones, semirigid ureterorenoscopy with intracorporeal lithotripsy has the best results with little morbidity. However, ESWL is a safe and non-invasive technique with minimal morbidity. We have studied the outcomes of ESWL for distal ureteric stones and compared it with the ureterorenoscopy which is the current modality of choice. METHODS A total of 120 patients were included in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups by an independent observer into group A (70 patients) and group B (50 patients). The patients in group A were managed by supine transgluteal ESWL as described below and those in group B were managed by semirigid ureteroscopy. Patients were followed up at 15 days, 30 days and 90 days. Failure was defined as the presence of fragments of any size in the followup film 3 months after the final ESWL session. RESULTS The demographic parameters and stone characteristics were comparable between the two groups. In our study, overall stone free rate at three months was 93.8% (107/114). Clearance in the ESWL group was 89.4% (59/66) and in the URS group was 100% (48/48). This difference; however, was not statistically significant. However, there was an increased incidence of complications in the URS group, (24.2% vs. 39.6%), though most of the complications were mild requiring no active intervention. This difference was also not statistically significant (p=0.10). CONCLUSION Supine transgluteal SWL for distal ureteric stones, the results are comparable with that of ureteroscopy with intracorporeal lithotripsy with specific advantages in carefully selected patients. It can be recommended as a non-invasive alternative for patients who are not fit or unwilling for surgery.
引用
收藏
页码:5684 / 5687
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Supine Transgluteal vs Prone Position in Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Distal Ureteric Stones
    Kamel, Mostafa
    Salem, Emad A.
    Maarouf, Aref
    Abdalla, Mohamed
    Ragab, Ahmed
    Shahin, Ashraf M. S.
    UROLOGY, 2015, 85 (01) : 51 - 54
  • [2] Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy to distal ureteric stones: the transgluteal approach significantly increases stone-free rates
    Phipps, Simon
    Stephenson, Carolann
    Tolley, David
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 112 (02) : E129 - E133
  • [3] TO COMPARE EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPSY AND URETEROSCOPY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF PEDIATRIC URETERIC CALCULI
    Ramakrishnan, Prem
    Medhat, Mohammed
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2012, 26 : A111 - A112
  • [4] Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopy for the removal of small distal ureteral stones
    Hautmann, S
    Friedrich, MG
    Fernandez, S
    Steuber, T
    Hammerer, P
    Braun, PM
    Jünemann, KP
    Huland, H
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2004, 73 (03) : 238 - 243
  • [5] Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy as first-line therapy for patients with single, distal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study
    Verze, Paolo
    Imbimbo, Ciro
    Cancelmo, Gennaro
    Creta, Massimiliano
    Palmieri, Alessandro
    Mangiapia, Francesco
    Buonopane, Roberto
    Mirone, Vincenzo
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2010, 106 (11) : 1748 - 1752
  • [6] Randomized controlled trial on extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for distal ureteric stone: transgluteal vs traditional prone approach
    Ho, B. S.
    Lam, W.
    Lai, T. C. T.
    Tsang, C. F.
    Ng, A.
    Ma, W. K.
    Yiu, M. K.
    Tsu, H. L.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 26 : 74 - 74
  • [7] Comparative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for proximal and distal ureteric stones
    Burak Turna
    Kaan Akbay
    Fatih Ekren
    Oktay Nazlı
    Erdal Apaydın
    Bülent Semerci
    Gürhan Günaydın
    İbrahim Cüreklibatır
    International Urology and Nephrology, 2008, 40 : 23 - 29
  • [8] Comparative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for proximal and distal ureteric stones
    Turna, Burak
    Akbay, Kaan
    Ekren, Fatih
    Nazli, Oktay
    Apaydin, Erdal
    Semerci, Buelent
    Guenaydin, Guerhan
    Cuereklibatir, Ibrahim
    INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2008, 40 (01) : 23 - 29
  • [9] IS EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPSY SUITABLE TREATMENT FOR LOWER URETERIC STONES
    COLE, RS
    SHUTTLEWORTH, KED
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1988, 62 (06): : 525 - 530
  • [10] Salvage extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy after failed distal ureteroscopy
    Aynehchi, S
    Samadi, AA
    Gallo, SJ
    Konno, S
    Tazaki, H
    Eshghi, M
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2002, 16 (06) : 355 - 358