Abstract
In a randomized study, we analyzed the treatment results of ureterorenoscopy (URS) and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for extended-mid and distal ureteral stones. We investigated also, for reasons of cost effectiveness, the factors influencing the outcome, the complications, and the need for auxiliary procedures. In three regional hospitals, we selected 156 patients with extended-mid and distal ureteral stones. After randomization, 87 were treated with URS, and 69 with SWL. The treatment results were studied in relation to complications, the need for auxiliary procedures and stone factors, urinary tract infection (UTI), dilatation, and kidney function. After retreatment of 45% of the patients, the stone-free rate after 12 weeks in the SWL group was 51%. After a retreatment rate of 9% of the patients in the URS group, the stone-free rate was 91%. Including the number of auxiliary procedures, we calculated the Efficiency Quotient (EQ) as 0.50 for SWL and 0.38 for URS. After correction and redefinition of auxiliary procedures, the EQ was 0.66. The mean treatment time for SWL was 52 minutes and for URS 39 minutes. General anesthesia was more frequently needed in URS patients. Complications occurred more often in the URS group (22 v 3 and 24 v 13, respectively). These were mostly mild, and all could be treated with a double-J stent, antibiotics, or analgetics. A lower stone-free rate was achieved in patients with larger (> or =11 mm) stones (75% v 85% for smaller stones in the URS group and 17% v 73% in the SWL group. In the URS group, the stone-free rate of patients with extended-mid ureteral stones was lower than that of patients with distal ureteral stones. Calculating the costs for URS and SWL appeared impossible because of the differences in available equipment. The stone-free rate after URS is much higher than after SWL, and the EQ in our series was strongly dependent on definitions. The decision about how to treat a patient with an extended-mid or distal ureteral stone therefore should not be made primarily on the basis of cost effectiveness but rather on the basis of the availability of proper equipment, the experience of the urologist, and the preference of the patient.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
