Treatment for extended-mid and distal ureteral stones: SWL or ureteroscopy? Results of a multicenter study.

PURPOSE 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. PATIENTS AND METHODS 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. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSION 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.

[1]  P. Neal,et al.  Endoscopic laser lithotripsy: safe, effective therapy for ureteral calculi. , 1991, The Journal of urology.

[2]  J. W. Segura Ureteroscopy for lower ureteral stones. , 1993, Urology.

[3]  D. Tolley,et al.  The impact of extracorporeal piezoelectric lithotripsy on the management of ureteric calculi: an audit. , 1991, British journal of urology.

[4]  D. Kapoor,et al.  Cost and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[5]  A. Hendrikx,et al.  Efficacy of second generation lithotriptors: a multicenter comparative study of 2,206 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatments with the Siemens Lithostar, Dornier HM4, Wolf Piezolith 2300, Direx Tripter X-1 and Breakstone lithotriptors. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[6]  H. Razvi,et al.  Secondary ureteroscopy: results and management strategy at a referral center. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[7]  M. Grasso,et al.  The case for primary endoscopic management of upper urinary tract calculi: I. A critical review of 121 extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy failures. , 1995, Urology.

[8]  J. W. Segura Surgical management of urinary calculi. , 1990, Seminars in nephrology.

[9]  R. Miller Endoscopic application of shock wave technology for the destruction of renal calculi , 1985, World Journal of Urology.

[10]  M. Grasso,et al.  Techniques in endoscopic lithotripsy using pulsed dye laser. , 1991, Urology.

[11]  A. Hendrikx,et al.  Treatment of mid- and lower ureteric calculi: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy vs laser ureteroscopy. A comparison of costs, morbidity and effectiveness. , 1998, British journal of urology.

[12]  R. Hohenfellner,et al.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of urinary calculi: experience in treatment of 3,278 patients using the Siemens Lithostar and Lithostar Plus. , 1991, The Journal of urology.

[13]  M. Resnick,et al.  Current indications for open stone surgery in the treatment of renal and ureteral calculi. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[14]  J. Hofbauer,et al.  Minimally invasive therapy of ureteric calculi , 1992 .

[15]  J. Denstedt,et al.  Contemporary management of ureteral stones. , 1997 .

[16]  A. Hendrikx,et al.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for large renal calculi: the role of ureteral stents. A randomized trial. , 1991, The Journal of urology.

[17]  G. Preminger Management of ureteral calculi: the debate continues... , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[18]  M. Grasso,et al.  The case for primary endoscopic management of upper urinary tract calculi: II. Cost and outcome assessment of 112 primary ureteral calculi. , 1995, Urology.

[19]  K. Matsuoka,et al.  A clinical study of percutaneous nephroureterolithotripsy. , 1990, The Kurume medical journal.

[20]  J. O'flynn The treatment of ureteric stones: report on 1120 patients. , 1980, British journal of urology.

[21]  Peter Alken,et al.  Update on contact lithotripsy , 2000, Current opinion in urology.

[22]  S. Dretler,et al.  Conversion of the electrohydraulic electrode to an electromechanical stone impactor: basic studies and a case report. , 1991, Journal of Urology.

[23]  M. Grasso,et al.  Ureteral Laser Lithotripsy Using the Pulsolith , 1989 .

[24]  E. Bartoli,et al.  Letter: Drug-induced asthma. , 1976, Lancet.