Comprehensive comparative assessment of the results of treatment of patients with ureteral stones using two different methods

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Aim. To improve treatment outcomes in patients with ureteral stones by optimizing the use of noninvasive and minimally invasive techniques.

Material and methods. A prospective analysis of 186 patients with ureteral stones who were treated at the “RSSPMCU” in the period from July 2020 to April 2023 was carried out. Among them, 84 were undergone to electromagnetic extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) using the Storz Modulith SLX-F2 device (Switzerland). A procedure was performed under ataralgesia. The mean stone size was 8.54±2.79 (4-16 mm). The average amount of shock waves per stone was 2436±247.78. The session duration was 19.37±1.86 minutes.

Endoscopic procedures were performed in 102 patients. Among them, 49 stones were removed using the ureteroscopy (URS), while in 49 and 4 cases percutaneous access (PCNL) and a combination of PCNL and URS under spinal anesthesia were done, respectively. The mean stone size was 11.46±4.26 (5-26 mm). Holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy was performed. The duration of the procedure was 63.38±17.48 min.

Results. The stone density of patients undergoing ESWL was 855±319.84 HU, while those undergoing endoscopic procedures was 943.78±319.48 HU (p>0.05). The absorbed dose with ESWL was 18.73±4.15 mGy compared to 31.42±1.40 mGy for endoscopic procedures (p<0.001). A length of stay was 1.0±0.0 and 2.75+0.1, respectively (p<0.001).

After 7-10 days, the stone free rate (SFR) was 76.2% (n=64) after ESWL and 99.02% (n=101) after endoscopic interventions (p<0.05). In the ESWL group, 3 patients received second session of ESWL for residual stones and in 9 cases URS was done. The SFR was 100% on day 45. In patients after endoscopic interventions, 1 patient underwent URS and SFR was 100% on the 15th day.

Conclusion. In general, the endoscopic technique is superior to ESWL in patients with ureteral stones both in terms of SFR and duration of procedure, but is inferior in safety due to invasiveness and the absorbed dose.

In our opinion, the key indication for endoscopic treatment should be stone size greater than 6 mm, density more than 1000 HU, and patient preference.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Sh. I. Giyasov

Republican Specialized Scientific and Practical Medical Center of Urology; Tashkent Medical Academy

Author for correspondence.
Email: dr.sh.giyasov@gmail.com

Ph.D., MD, professor at the Department of Urology of Tashkent Medical Academy, consultant at «RSSPMCU»

Uzbekistan, Tashkent; Tashkent

A. A. Rakhimbaev

Republican Specialized Scientific and Practical Medical Center of Urology

Email: doctorasqar83@mail.ru

researcher, urologist at the surgical department of the «RSSPMCU»

Uzbekistan, Tashkent

I. B. Ziyayev

Republican Specialized Scientific and Practical Medical Center of Urology

Email: ismoilziyayev@gmail.com

researcher, urologist at the surgical department of the «RSSPMCU»

Uzbekistan, Tashkent

References

  1. Trinchieri A. et al. Epidemiology, in Stone Disease, K.S. C.P. Segura JW, Pak CY, Preminger GM, Tolley D., Editors. 2003, Health Publications: Paris.
  2. Arustamov D.L. Nurullayev R.B. Epidemiology of urolithiasis in the Aral Sea Area ecologic disaster zone in Uzbekistan. Urol.Res. 2003;31(2):105.
  3. Stamatelou K.K., Francis M.E., Jones C.A., Nyberg L.M., Curhan G.C. Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int, 2003;63:1817. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12675858
  4. Hesse A., Brändle E., Wilbert D., Köhrmann K.U., Alken P. Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol. 2003;44:709. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14644124
  5. Sánchez-Martín F.M., Millán Rodríguez F., Esquena Fernández S., Segarra Tomás J., Rousaud Barón F., Martínez-Rodríguez R., Villavicencio Mavrich H. [Incidence and prevalence of published studies about urolithiasis in Spain. A review]. Actas Urol Esp, 2007;31:511. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17711170
  6. Pearle M.S., Lingeman J.E., Leveillee R., Kuo R., Preminger G.M., et al. Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol. 2005;173:2005. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15879805
  7. Lingeman J.E., Coury T.A., Newman D.M., Kahnoski R.J., Mertz J.H., Mosbaugh P.G., Steele R.E., Woods J.R. Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1987;138:485. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3625845
  8. Ather M.H., Shrestha B., Mehmood A. Does ureteral stenting prior to shock wave lithotripsy influence the need for intervention in steinstrasse and related complications? Urol Int. 2009;83:222. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19752621
  9. Madbouly K., Sheir K.Z., Elsobky E., Eraky I., Kenawy M. Risk factors for the formation of a steinstrasse after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a statistical model. J Urol. 2002;167:1239. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11832705
  10. Sayed M.A., el-Taher A.M., Aboul-Ella H.A., Shaker S.E. Steinstrasse after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: aetiology, prevention and management. BJU Int. 2001;88:675. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11890235
  11. Tan Y.M., Yip S.K., Chong T.W., Wong M.Y., Cheng C., Foo K.T. Clinical experience and results of ESWL treatment for 3,093 urinary calculi with the Storz Modulith SL 20 lithotripter at the Singapore general hospital. Scan J Urol Nephrol. 2002;36:363. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12487741
  12. Skolarikos A., Alivizatos G., de la Rosette J. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 25 years later: complications and their prevention. Eur Urol. 2006;50:981. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16481097
  13. Osman M.M., Alfano Y., Kamp S., Haecker A., Alken P., Michel M.S., Knoll T. 5-year-follow-up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Eur Urol. 2005;47:860. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15925084
  14. Müller-Mattheis V.G., Schmale D., Seewald M., Rosin H., Ackermann R. Bacteremia during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of renal calculi. J Urol. 1991;146:733. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1875482
  15. Preminger G.M., Tiselius H.G., Assimos D.G., Alken P., Buck A.C., et al. 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1610. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18074433
  16. Geavlete P., Georgescu D., Niţă G., Mirciulescu V., Cauni V. Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol. 2006;20:179. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16548724
  17. Perez Castro E., Osther P.J., Jinga V., Razvi H., Stravodimos K.G., Parikh K., Kural A.R., de la Rosette J.J; CROES Ureteroscopy Global Study Group. Differences in ureteroscopic stone treatment and outcomes for distal, mid-, proximal, or multiple ureteral locations: the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society ureteroscopy global study. Eur Urol, 2014;66:102. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24507782
  18. Kogan M.I., Belousov I.I., Yassine A.M. Efficiency of contact ureterolithotripsy in treatment of proximal ureteral large stones. Urology Herald. 2019;7(1):12–25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2019-7-1-12-25. Russian (Коган М.И., Белоусов И.И., Яссине А.М. Эффективность контактной уретеролитотрипсии в лечении крупных камней проксимального отдела мочеточника. Вестник урологии. 2019;7(1):12–25. https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2019-7-1-12-25).
  19. Martov A.G., Gordienko A.Yu., Moskalenko S.A., Penyukova I.V. Remote and contact ureterolithotripsy in the treatment of large stones of the upper third of the ureter. Experimental and clinical urology. 2013;2:82–85. Russian (Мартов А.Г., Гордиенко А.Ю., Москаленко С.А., Пенюкова И.В. Дистанционная и контактная уретеролитотрипсия в лечении крупных камней верхней трети мочеточника. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2013;2:82–85).
  20. Guidelines European Association of Urology 2023. Urolithiasis. p. 334.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies