Semirigid Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteric Stones: A Comparative Appraisal of Efficacy and Safety

Abstract Background: Urolithiasis is a common disease worldwide; many options are now available for its management, but evaluation of patient- and stone-related factors helps to select the treatment modality. Aim of Study: The objective of the study was to compare the efficiency and integrity of semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) regarding stone-free rate and potential complications for patients with upper ureteric stone. Patients and Methods: A prospective study was performed, comprising 100 patients with upper ureteric stone sized < 10 mm. They were assigned into two equal groups: one group underwent ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and the other group underwent ESWL sessions. Patients’ follow-up done at 1 month and 3 months for stone clearance and eventual complications, many factors related to the patient and stone were evaluated. Results: The mean age of all patients was 42.54 ± 14.07 years; 69% of patients were males. The initial stone-free rate (SFR) was statistically significant between the two groups (80% for URS and 62% for ESWL), SFR for ESWL group increased to 76% and 82% after the 2 nd and 3 rd sessions, respectively; however, it remained higher in the URS group after 3 months of treatment. Complications were minor in the two groups. Analysis of stone- and patient-related factors revealed no significant impact of patient’s age, gender, height, and body mass index in both groups, whereas stone size, stone density, and ureteral wall thickness had a significant effect on SFR, the significance of proximal ureteric diameter (PUD) and renal pelvis anterior–posterior diameter was noticed in ESWL group only. Conclusion: Both ESWL and URS were safe and effective means for treating upper ureteric stones smaller than 10 mm, but evaluation of several factors related to patient and stone may help improve stone outcome.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Mustansiriya Medical Journal
Published
2025-02-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/mj.mj_10_24
Primary Topic
Kidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Semirigid Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteric Stones: A Comparative Appraisal of Efficacy and Safety

Alaa Al-Deen Al-Dabbagh, Ibrahim Mustafa Murshed
Mustansiriya Medical Journal
Kidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
article

Semirigid Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteric Stones: A Comparative Appraisal of Efficacy and Safety

Alaa Al-Deen Al-Dabbagh, Ibrahim Mustafa Murshed
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background: Urolithiasis is a common disease worldwide; many options are now available for its management, but evaluation of patient- and stone-related factors helps to select the treatment modality. Aim of Study: The objective of the study was to compare the efficiency and integrity of semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) regarding stone-free rate and potential complications for patients with upper ureteric stone. Patients and Methods: A prospective study was performed, comprising 100 patients with upper ureteric stone sized < 10 mm. They were assigned into two equal groups: one group underwent ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and the other group underwent ESWL sessions. Patients’ follow-up done at 1 month and 3 months for stone clearance and eventual complications, many factors related to the patient and stone were evaluated. Results: The mean age of all patients was 42.54 ± 14.07 years; 69% of patients were males. The initial stone-free rate (SFR) was statistically significant between the two groups (80% for URS and 62% for ESWL), SFR for ESWL group increased to 76% and 82% after the 2 nd and 3 rd sessions, respectively; however, it remained higher in the URS group after 3 months of treatment. Complications were minor in the two groups. Analysis of stone- and patient-related factors revealed no significant impact of patient’s age, gender, height, and body mass index in both groups, whereas stone size, stone density, and ureteral wall thickness had a significant effect on SFR, the significance of proximal ureteric diameter (PUD) and renal pelvis anterior–posterior diameter was noticed in ESWL group only. Conclusion: Both ESWL and URS were safe and effective means for treating upper ureteric stones smaller than 10 mm, but evaluation of several factors related to patient and stone may help improve stone outcome.

Mustansiriya Medical Journal
Mustansiriyah University (IQ), Al Yarmouk University College (IQ)
Openalex Percentile: Top 95%
Kidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.