MP22-10 COMPARISON OF FLUOROSCOPY TIME DURING URETEROSCOPY AND EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY FOR RENAL STONES

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyImaging/Radiology: Uroradiology II (MP22)1 Sep 2021MP22-10 COMPARISON OF FLUOROSCOPY TIME DURING URETEROSCOPY AND EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY FOR RENAL STONES Mohamed Keheila, Akin Amasyali, Joshua Belle, Nikoli Brown, Jason Groegler, Joseph Hutton, Mohammad Hajiha, and D. Duane Baldwin Mohamed KeheilaMohamed Keheila More articles by this author , Akin AmasyaliAkin Amasyali More articles by this author , Joshua BelleJoshua Belle More articles by this author , Nikoli BrownNikoli Brown More articles by this author , Jason GroeglerJason Groegler More articles by this author , Joseph HuttonJoseph Hutton More articles by this author , Mohammad HajihaMohammad Hajiha More articles by this author , and D. Duane BaldwinD. Duane Baldwin More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002013.10AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: There are minimal data comparing fluoroscopy time between ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). One prior study showed no difference in fluoroscopy time between the two modalities. Over time, techniques to reduce fluoroscopy during URS have evolved. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes and fluoroscopy times between URS and SWL for renal stones in modern practice. METHODS: Outcomes were retrospectively collected from 364 patients who underwent URS and 444 patients who underwent SWL for urolithiasis targeted using fluoroscopy in a single academic institution from July 2012 to February 2019. Patients with ureteral stones, renal stones <5 mm and >20 mm, and those who underwent both URS and SWL were excluded. After patient matching, 86 URS and 237 SWL patients were included for analysis. Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests were used to compare fluoroscopy time and clinical outcomes with p<0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Gender distribution, age, BMI, stone size, and stone location were not different between patients. Total mean number of stones was higher in the URS group (2.4±1.4) compared to SWL group (1.5±0.9, p<0.05). Fluoroscopy time was greater in patients who underwent SWL (189.3±98.5 seconds) compared to those undergoing URS (6.7±11.9 seconds; p<0.05). Ureteroscopy had a significantly higher SFR compared to SWL (p<0.05). Both groups had similar complication rates (4.7 vs. 7.0%, p=0.32) and Clavien-Dindo scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that in the modern era, SWL results in ∼27x increased radiation exposure compared to URS. In addition, this study agrees with prior findings demonstrating that URS has a higher stone free rate with a similar complication rate compared to SWL. This highlights the importance of developing strategies for reducing fluoroscopy time while performing SWL such as the use of ultrasound guidance. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e394-e394 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Mohamed Keheila More articles by this author Akin Amasyali More articles by this author Joshua Belle More articles by this author Nikoli Brown More articles by this author Jason Groegler More articles by this author Joseph Hutton More articles by this author Mohammad Hajiha More articles by this author D. Duane Baldwin More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...