Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Sep 4;45(3):202-205.
doi: 10.5152/tud.2018.70094. Print 2019 May.

Small renal pelvis stones: Shock wave lithotripsy or flexible ureteroscopy? A match-pair analysis

Zafer Gökhan Gürbüz  1 , Nevzat Can Şener  1 , Ediz Vuruşkan  1 , Mehmet Eflatun Deniz  1 , Güçlü Gürlen  1 , Ferhat Ortoğlu  1
Affiliations

Small renal pelvis stones: Shock wave lithotripsy or flexible ureteroscopy? A match-pair analysis

Zafer Gökhan Gürbüz et al. Turk J Urol. .

Abstract

Objective: Kidney stones in renal pelvis may be treated using various methods. For larger stones, percutaneous nephrolitotomy (PNL) is the first choice of option; where for smaller stones, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) or flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) could be more suitable options. In this article we aimed to compare the outcomes of F-URS and SWL on the treatment of renal pelvis stones <10 mm.

Material and methods: Files of patients treated with SWL and F-URS for renal pelvis stones <10 mm between March 2013 and May 2016 in our clinic were analyzed. For comparison, a match-pair analysis was designed. Complete stone removal was considered success.

Results: Forty patients were treated using F-URS (Group 1) and 40 patients underwent SWL (Group 2). Patients were assessed the day after the last session of the procedure. The early stone-free rates were 70% (28/40) in Group 1, and 15% in Group 2 (p<0.05). The same analysis was performed after three months. Stone-free rates were 100% and 92.5% in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.079). Three patients in Group 2 were not stone free after 3 sessions of SWL and considered unsuccessful. They were all successfully treated by F-URS.

Conclusion: Even though there is no statistical difference among groups, our data may be interpreted as having better outcomes and tolerability with F-URS than SWL. We believe F-URS may have a great treatment prospect in this particular patient group.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69:475–82. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.040. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Irani D, Eshratkhah R, Amin-Sharifi A. Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy in complex urolithiasis in the era of advanced endourologic procedures. Urol J. 2005;2:13–9. - PubMed
    1. Akpınar H, Tüfek İ, Atuğ F, Sevinc C, Kural AR. Retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of lower calyx stones. Urology. 2009;35:108–12.
    1. Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ, Pace KT. A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol Endourol Soc. 2011;25:481–5. - PubMed
    1. Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K. Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J. 2006;176:1453–7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.089. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources