Comparison of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Ureteroscopic Stone Extraction in the Treatment of Ureteral Stones
More details
Hide details
Guneydogu Medical Center, Urology department, Diyarbakır, Turkey
State Hospital, Urology department, Muş, Turkey
State Hospital, Diyarbakır, Turkey
Publication date: 2010-01-12
Corresponding author
Yaşar Bozkurt   

Özel Güneydoğu Tıp Merkezi Gazi cad. No: 27 Dörtyol/ Diyarbakır
Eur J Gen Med 2010;7(1):29-34
Aim: There are some controversies on the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic stone extraction (URS) in ureteral stones. Because, previous studies on this topic mostly included lower ureteral stones, we aimed to compare effectiveness of these two methods in both lower and upper ureteral stones. Method: After diagnosis of urolithiasis, ESWL or URS was performed to patients. Stone-free ratio, complications and necessity of an additional intervention for both procedures were recorded. The decision about the selection of method was made based on the patients’ choice. Upper and lower ureteral stones were included, while middle ureteral stones were excluded from the study. Result: Total number of patients undergone URS was 90 and ESWL was 96. There was no difference in male/female ratio, age and stone diameters between two groups (P>0.05). Upper ureteral stones were found to be more frequent in ESWL group than those in URS group (55.2% vs. 33.3%, respectively, P=0.004). Total stone-free ratio was 97.8% for URS and 68.8% for ESWL (P<0.001). Ratios of treatment failures and complications were found to be lower in URS group compared with ESWL group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Although, URS seems to be more successful in the treatment of ureteral stones, further prospective studies with more patients are needed to clarify our results.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top