Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ghalayini,Ibrahim F.
Data de Publicação: 2006
Outros Autores: Al-Ghazo,Mohammed A., Khader,Yousef S.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382006000600006
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi with respect to patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND MHETODS: This is a prospective study where a total of 212 patients with solitary, radiopaque distal ureteral calculi were treated with ESWL (n = 92) using Dornier lithotriptor S (MedTech Europe GmbH) or URS (n = 120). Patient and stone characteristics, treatment parameters, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction were assessed for each group. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable in regard to patient age, sex, stone size, and side of treatment. The stone-free status for ESWL and URS at 3 months was 81.5% and 97.5%, respectively (p < 0.0001). In addition, 88% of patients who underwent ESWL versus 20% who underwent URS were discharged home the day of procedure. Minor complications occurred in 3.3% and 8.3% of the ESWL and URS groups, respectively (p = 0.127). No ureteral perforation or stricture occurred in the URS group. Postoperative flank pain and dysuria were more severe in the URS than ESWL group, although the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.16). Patient satisfaction was high for both groups, including 94% for URS and 80% for ESWL (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: URS is more effective than ESWL for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi. ESWL was more often performed on an outpatient basis, and showed a trend towards less flank pain and dysuria, fewer complications and quicker convalescence. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher for URS according to the questionnaire used in this study.
id SBU-1_c29461f4131d9a230b8bb7c1fbacbdc1
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382006000600006
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfactionureteral calculiureteroscopyextracorporeal shockwave lithotripsyOBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi with respect to patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND MHETODS: This is a prospective study where a total of 212 patients with solitary, radiopaque distal ureteral calculi were treated with ESWL (n = 92) using Dornier lithotriptor S (MedTech Europe GmbH) or URS (n = 120). Patient and stone characteristics, treatment parameters, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction were assessed for each group. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable in regard to patient age, sex, stone size, and side of treatment. The stone-free status for ESWL and URS at 3 months was 81.5% and 97.5%, respectively (p < 0.0001). In addition, 88% of patients who underwent ESWL versus 20% who underwent URS were discharged home the day of procedure. Minor complications occurred in 3.3% and 8.3% of the ESWL and URS groups, respectively (p = 0.127). No ureteral perforation or stricture occurred in the URS group. Postoperative flank pain and dysuria were more severe in the URS than ESWL group, although the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.16). Patient satisfaction was high for both groups, including 94% for URS and 80% for ESWL (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: URS is more effective than ESWL for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi. ESWL was more often performed on an outpatient basis, and showed a trend towards less flank pain and dysuria, fewer complications and quicker convalescence. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher for URS according to the questionnaire used in this study.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2006-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382006000600006International braz j urol v.32 n.6 2006reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-55382006000600006info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGhalayini,Ibrahim F.Al-Ghazo,Mohammed A.Khader,Yousef S.eng2007-02-16T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382006000600006Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2007-02-16T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction
title Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction
spellingShingle Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction
Ghalayini,Ibrahim F.
ureteral calculi
ureteroscopy
extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy
title_short Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction
title_full Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction
title_fullStr Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction
title_full_unstemmed Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction
title_sort Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction
author Ghalayini,Ibrahim F.
author_facet Ghalayini,Ibrahim F.
Al-Ghazo,Mohammed A.
Khader,Yousef S.
author_role author
author2 Al-Ghazo,Mohammed A.
Khader,Yousef S.
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ghalayini,Ibrahim F.
Al-Ghazo,Mohammed A.
Khader,Yousef S.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv ureteral calculi
ureteroscopy
extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy
topic ureteral calculi
ureteroscopy
extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy
description OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi with respect to patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND MHETODS: This is a prospective study where a total of 212 patients with solitary, radiopaque distal ureteral calculi were treated with ESWL (n = 92) using Dornier lithotriptor S (MedTech Europe GmbH) or URS (n = 120). Patient and stone characteristics, treatment parameters, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction were assessed for each group. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable in regard to patient age, sex, stone size, and side of treatment. The stone-free status for ESWL and URS at 3 months was 81.5% and 97.5%, respectively (p < 0.0001). In addition, 88% of patients who underwent ESWL versus 20% who underwent URS were discharged home the day of procedure. Minor complications occurred in 3.3% and 8.3% of the ESWL and URS groups, respectively (p = 0.127). No ureteral perforation or stricture occurred in the URS group. Postoperative flank pain and dysuria were more severe in the URS than ESWL group, although the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.16). Patient satisfaction was high for both groups, including 94% for URS and 80% for ESWL (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: URS is more effective than ESWL for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi. ESWL was more often performed on an outpatient basis, and showed a trend towards less flank pain and dysuria, fewer complications and quicker convalescence. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher for URS according to the questionnaire used in this study.
publishDate 2006
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2006-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382006000600006
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382006000600006
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-55382006000600006
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.32 n.6 2006
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318070111404032