Prospective comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in patients with non-lower pole kidney stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract

Both shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) are recommended as the first choice for non-lower pole kidney stones. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost of SWL versus F-URS in patients with solitary non-lower pole kidney stones ≤ 20mm under the COVID-19 pandemic.This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or F-URS) for non-lower pole kidney stones were enrolled in this study. The stone-free rate (SFR), retreatment rate, complications, and cost were recorded. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed. A total of 699 patients were finally included, of which 81.3% (568) were treated with SWL and 18.7% (131) underwent F-URS. After PSM, SWL showed equivalent SFR (87.9% vs. 91.1%,P = 0.323), retreatment rate (8.6% vs. 4.8%,P = 0.169), and adjunctive procedure (2.6% vs. 4.9%,P = 0.385) compared with F-URS. Complications were scarce and also comparable between SWL and F-URS (6.0% vs 7.7%,P > 0.05), while the incidence of ureteral perforation was higher in the F-URS group compared with the SWL group (1.5% vs 0%,P = 0.008). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1day vs 2days,P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (1200 vs 30,083,P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the F-URS group. This prospective cohort demonstrated that SWL had equivalent efficacy with more safety and cost benefits than F-URS in treating patients with solitary non-lower pole kidney stones ≤ 20mm. During the COVID-19 pandemic, SWL may have benefits in preserving hospital resources and limiting opportunity for virus transmission, compared to URS. These findings may guide clinical practice.