Editorial Comment

Abstract

In this prospective randomized study, the authors compare shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the management of proximal ureteral calculi > 1 cm. Both groups were comparable in terms of stone size, patient's age, and sex. SWL was associated with more postoperative office and emergency room (ER) visits for pain management, and had a higher percentage of complications (using the Calvien grading system), as compared with URS. URS was associated with higher stone-free rates (SFR) and found to be superior in treating calcium oxalate monohydrate stones. Overall, URS scored higher in terms of the efficiency quotient (EQ) for stones ≥ 1 cm as compared with SWL. Finally, the mean total cost for SWL was significantly higher as compared with URS when taking into account additional office and ER visits as well as auxiliary procedures needed for the management of residual stones after SWL. A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Semirigid Ureteroscopy for the Management of Proximal Ureteral CalculiUrologyVol. 74Issue 6PreviewTo conduct a prospective randomized study comparing both techniques for the management of solitary radio-opaque upper ureteral stones < 2 cm in diameter. The ideal treatment for upper ureteral stones > 1 cm size remains to be determined with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) being acceptable options. Full-Text PDF ReplyUrologyVol. 74Issue 6PreviewWe read with great interest the comments given by Dr. Dorit and Dr. Glenn regarding our article, as they have raised 2 points. Full-Text PDF