Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

Aboumarzouk, Omar M.; Kata, S.G.; Keeley, Francis X.; McClinton, Samuel; Nabi, Ghulam

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006029.pub3

Cited by 33 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is important to bear in mind that the quality of evidence is very low. The 2012 Cochrane metaanalysis comparing SWL and URS identified seven randomised controlled studies reporting on all complication rates and found a significantly lower complication rate for SWL compared with URS (risk ratio: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.33-0.88, p = 0.01) [69]. However, for all patients with ureteral stones, when residual fragments are present, especially if initial SWL fails, urologists should offer endoscopic procedures to render the patients stone free.…”

Section: Implications For Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Implications For Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…3 The efficiency of the minimal invasive techniques, such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureterorenoscopy (URS) are shown in several studies. [4][5][6][7] Nevertheless, these techniques are not totally risk-free and they are not cost-effective treatment options. Thus, conservative treatment is an attractive alternative to invasive procedures for many patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tamsulosin versus nifedipin in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones and the predictive value of Hounsfield unit in stone expulsion

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated the efficacy of tamsulosin and nifedipine in medical expulsive therapy (MET) in patients with distal ureteral stone. In addition, we tried to determine the predictive value of Hounsfield Unit (HU) of the stone in the success of MET. A total of 75 patients with a distal ureteral stone of 5-10 mm diameter were randomly divided into three groups. Group 1 (n ¼ 25) received tamsulosin 0.4 mg/d; group 2 (n ¼ 25) received nifedipine 10 mg/day p.o and group 3 (n ¼ 25) received diclofenac sodium 50 mg p.o. when required. At the beginning of each treatment, the HU of the stone was also measured using a non-contrast computerized tomography in all the patients. The results were evaluated at week four. The mean age of the patients was 36.8 (range, 16-68) years. Stone expulsion was observed in 19 (76%) patients in group 1, 16 (64%) patients in group 2 and 9 (36%) patients in group 3 (p group1-3 ¼ 0.004, p group2-3 ¼ 0.048 and p group1-2 ¼ 0.355). The mean expulsion time was 9, 9.1 and 10.3 d, respectively (p group1-3 50.001, p group2-3 50.001 and p group1-2 ¼ 0.619). The mean diclofenac sodium dose per patient was 544, 602 and 1408 mg in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively (p group1-3 50.001, p group2-3 50.001 and p group1-2 ¼ 0.977). The mean HU of the stone in patients with and without a successful MET was 363 and 389, respectively (p ¼ 0.462). Our results showed that MET with both nifedipine and tamsulosin provided a similar increase in the expulsion rate for distal ureteral stones. HU does not seem to be a predictive parameter for stone expulsion.

show abstract

“…This study also reported significantly higher instances of retreatment with SWL therapy to achieve stone clearance, however, SWL therapy was less likely to need ancillary treatment than URS [8].…”

Section: Distal Uretermentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Aboumarzouk OM, et al [8] conducted a study which demonstrated similar results and concluded that URS was superior in regards to three-month stonefree rates, but at a higher complication rate and longer hospital stay. This study also reported significantly higher instances of retreatment with SWL therapy to achieve stone clearance, however, SWL therapy was less likely to need ancillary treatment than URS [8].…”

Section: Distal Uretermentioning

confidence: 85%

A Comparison of Treatment Modalities in Renal and Ureteral Calculi

Trew¹,

Cornfield²

2017

OJU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the decades, since the advent of shockwave lithotripsy, instrumentation and techniques in both ureteroscopic and percutaneous stone management have improved exponentially, leading to both increased success and lower complication rates. As a result, there have been some controversies revolving around the therapeutic modality of choice for specific stones in terms of their size and location. This review seeks to provide some clarity to the decision-making process with emphasis on patient comfort and choice and due consideration being given to the potential complications associated with the various treatment modalities.

show abstract

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

Cited by 33 publications

References 49 publications

What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review

What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review

Tamsulosin versus nifedipin in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones and the predictive value of Hounsfield unit in stone expulsion

A Comparison of Treatment Modalities in Renal and Ureteral Calculi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About