The comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stones
Keywords:Laparoscopy, Shockwave Lithotripsy, ureteral stones, ureteroscopy
Introduction: In this study we compare the success rates and complication rates of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), laparoscopic, and ureteroscopic approaches for large (between 1 and 2 cm) proximal ureteral stones.
Methods: In total, 151 patients with ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm in diameter were randomized into 3 groups (52 SWL, 51 laparoscopy and 48 retrograde intrarenal surgery [RIRS]). The groups were compared for stone size, success rates, and complication rates using the modified Clavien grading system.
Results: Stone burden of the groups were similar (p = 0.36). The success rates were 96%, 81% and 79%, respectively in the laparoscopy, SWL, and ureteroscopy groups. The success rate in laparoscopy group was significantly higher (p < 0.05). When these groups were compared for complication rates, RIRS seemed to bethe group with the lowest complication rates (4.11%) (p < 0.05). SWL and laparoscopy seem to have similar rates of complication (7.06% and 7.86%, respectively, p = 0.12).
Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the results of laparoscopy, SWL and RIRS in ureteral stones. Our results showed that in management of patients with upper ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm, laparoscopy is the most successful method based on its stone-free rates and acceptable complication rates. However, the limitations of our study are lack of hospital stay and cost-effectiveness data. Also, studies conducted on larger populations should support our findings. When a less invasive method is the only choice, SWL and flexible ureterorenoscopy methods have similar success rates. RIRS, however, has a lower complication rate than the other approaches.
How to Cite
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.