• Ghulam Mustafa, Naveed Ahmed Mahar, Harris Hassan Qureshi, Mohsan Mustafa, Muhammad Fayaz, and Asad Shahzad Hassan.
• Department of Urology, Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation, Karachi, Pakistan.
• J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2024 Jan 1; 34 (1): 101104101-104.

ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with ureterorenoscopy and lasertripsy for managing upper ureteral stones of size 10mm to 15mm.Study DesignObservational, cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of Urology, Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT), from December 2020 to December 2021.MethodologyA total of 168 patients with the diagnosis of proximal ureteric stone of size 1-1.5 cm were enrolled for this study. Patients were divided into two groups by simple random method. Group 1 patients underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) and lasertripsy while Group 2 patients were subjected to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). Patients' demography, operative time, duration of hospitalisation, complication rate and stone-free rates, were recorded for both groups. Frequency and percentages were calculated for categorical variables and mean and standard deviation were calculated for continuous variables. For comparison of continuous variables, one-way ANOVA was applied, and Chi-square test was applied to compare the categorical variables. The p-value ≤0.05 was taken as significant.ResultsThe mean age was of 39.55 ± 14.06 years, with the majority falling within the age group of 26 to 40 years. There were more males (116, 69%) than females (52, 31%). Most of the patients did not have a history of diabetes or hypertension. Sixty-two patients had previous history of stones. The average duration of ureteric stone disease was 3.18 ± 3.14 months. The mean size of the ureteric stone was 10.82 ± 3.19mm. The procedure duration was significantly shorter for URS, as compared to ESWL (33.81 ± 15.42 minutes vs. 45.00 ± 0.00 minutes, p=<0.01. The overall stone clearance rate was significantly higher after URS (83.3%) as compared to ESWL (64.2%, p=0.05).ConclusionURS was a superior treatment option as compared to ESWL. However, the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be based on a tailored approach considering the patient's preference and the size of the stones.Key WordsExtracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS), Modified clavien classification system (MCCS), Ureteric stone.

11 keywords...

hide…