Comparison of Treatment Efficacy between Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopic Stone Removal for Lower Ureteral Stones

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Purpose: We compared the efficacy and patient satisfaction between shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic removal of stone (URS) for the treatment of lower ureteral stones.
Materials and Methods: We reviewed 223 patients who were treated for lower ureteral stones from August 2006 to January 2009. SWL and URS were performed in 47 and 176 patients, respectively. After treatment, the patients' subjective inconvenience/pain and their satisfaction with the treatment process were estimated by questionnaire. We analyzed success rates, complication rates, inconvenience/pain scores, and satisfaction scores for each group of patients.
Results: The overall success rates of SWL and URS were 82.9% and 97.7%, respectively (p=0.001). The complication rates of SWL and URS were 8.5% and 10.8%, respectively (p=0.162). The satisfaction scores of SWL and URS were 7.4 and 9.2, respectively (p=0.001). Whereas 87.5% of the URS group preferred the same treatment in case of a recurrence of ureteral stones, only 68% of the SWL group preferred the same treatment in the future (p=0.002).
Conclusions: URS was more successful and satisfactory to the patients with lower ureteral stones. Although both SWL and URS were highly effective for treatment of distal ureteral stones, we believe that URS is the first-line treatment modality for lower ureteral stones.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Purpose: We compared the efficacy and patient satisfaction between shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic removal of stone (URS) for the treatment of lower ureteral stones.
Materials and Methods: We reviewed 223 patients who were treated for lower ureteral stones from August 2006 to January 2009. SWL and URS were performed in 47 and 176 patients, respectively. After treatment, the patients' subjective inconvenience/pain and their satisfaction with the treatment process were estimated by questionnaire. We analyzed success rates, complication rates, inconvenience/pain scores, and satisfaction scores for each group of patients.
Results: The overall success rates of SWL and URS were 82.9% and 97.7%, respectively (p=0.001). The complication rates of SWL and URS were 8.5% and 10.8%, respectively (p=0.162). The satisfaction scores of SWL and URS were 7.4 and 9.2, respectively (p=0.001). Whereas 87.5% of the URS group preferred the same treatment in case of a recurrence of ureteral stones, only 68% of the SWL group preferred the same treatment in the future (p=0.002).
Conclusions: URS was more successful and satisfactory to the patients with lower ureteral stones. Although both SWL and URS were highly effective for treatment of distal ureteral stones, we believe that URS is the first-line treatment modality for lower ureteral stones.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 최항원, "하부요관결석에서 응급 요관경하배석술의 유용성" 대한비뇨기과학회 49 (49): 257-261, 2008

2 Byeon SS, "Ureteroscopic manipulation for ureteral calculi: comparison with ESWL" 37 : 1124-1131, 1996

3 Segura JW, "Ureteral stones Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. The American Urological Association" 158 : 1915-1921, 1997

4 Pérez-Castro Ellendt E, "Transurethral ureteroscopy. A current urological procedure" 33 : 445-460, 1980

5 Lee F, "The ‘top 10' urological procedures: a study of hospital episodes statistics 1998-99" 90 : 1-6, 2002

6 Kim KH, "The comparison of efficacy of ureteroscopic removal and shockwave lithotripsy in lower ureteral stones" 42 : 905-909, 2001

7 Chaussy C, "Shock wave treatment for stones in the upper urinary tract" 10 : 743-750, 1983

8 Pearle MS, "Prospective randonmized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi" 16 : 1255-1260, 2001

9 Pearle MS, "Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less" 179 (179): S69-S73, 2008

10 Lotan Y, "Management of ureteral calculi: a cost comparison and decision making analysis" 167 : 1621-1629, 2002

11 Dretler SP, "Management of the lower ureteral stone" 14 : 62-67, 1995

12 Candace FG, "Long-term follow-up of pediatric shock wave lithotripsy" 179 : 383-, 2008

13 Chaussy C, "Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves" 2 : 1265-1268, 1980

14 Chaussy CG, "Current state and future developments of noninvasive treatment of human urinary stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy" 141 : 782-789, 1989

15 Kapoor DA, "Cost and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi" 148 : 1095-1096, 1992

16 Turk RM, "A comparison of ureteroscopy to in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi" 161 : 45-46, 1999

17 김형호, "1cm 이상 요관결석에 대한 요관경하배석술과 체외충격파쇄석술의 비용과 성공률의 비교" 대한비뇨기과학회 46 (46): 1141-1146, 2005