Effectiveness of Flexible Ureterorenoscopy Versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi of 5-15 mm: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial
- PMID: 34337498
- PMCID: PMC8317856
- DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.01.001
Effectiveness of Flexible Ureterorenoscopy Versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi of 5-15 mm: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
Background: Primary flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) are treatment options in patients with renal calculi of 5-15 mm.
Objective: To compare effectiveness, complication rates, and pain scores between primary URS and SWL.
Design setting and participants: Between 2011 and 2016, patients with renal calculi between 5 and 15 mm were randomized to undergo either primary URS or SWL.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Stone-free rate and size of residual fragments assessed by computed tomography after 3 mo, complications, and pain scores were evaluated.
Results and limitations: The study was prematurely closed after randomizing 44 patients due to poor accrual. The 3-mo stone-free rate and mean residual stone size were, respectively, 61% and 1.8 mm after URS and 48% and 2.4 mm after SWL. Early post-treatment pain scores were significantly higher after URS than after SWL on day 1 (3.3 vs 1.6, p = 0.02) and day 7 (5.2 vs 3.4, p = 0.04), but were no longer detectable after 3 wk and 3 mo, respectively. One Clavien-Dindo grade II complication was observed after URS (5%) and SWL (4%), while one (4%) grade IIIb complication was observed after SWL.
Conclusions: URS appears to be associated with higher early post-treatment discomfort, which could be associated with routine postoperative stenting. Owing to premature closure of this trial, the power was insufficient to formally compare URS and SWL; however, the present data might be informative to counsel patients about treatment outcomes and allow future meta-analyses.
Patient summary: This study was ended prematurely, but it contributes data about efficacy and side effects of different treatment options in patients with renal calculi.
Keywords: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; Renal stones; Ureterorenoscopy; Urolithiasis.
© 2021 The Author(s).
Similar articles
-
Prospective comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in patients with non-lower pole kidney stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.Urolithiasis. 2023 Feb 16;51(1):38. doi: 10.1007/s00240-023-01412-y. Urolithiasis. 2023. PMID: 36795174 Free PMC article.
-
Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10-20 mm.BJU Int. 2012 Sep;110(6):898-902. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10961.x. Epub 2012 Feb 28. BJU Int. 2012. PMID: 22372915
-
Impact of previous SWL on ureterorenoscopy outcomes and optimal timing for ureterorenoscopy after SWL failure in proximal ureteral stones.World J Urol. 2020 Mar;38(3):769-774. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02809-4. Epub 2019 May 16. World J Urol. 2020. PMID: 31098658
-
Safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy vs. flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of urinary calculi: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Front Surg. 2022 Nov 7;9:925481. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.925481. eCollection 2022. Front Surg. 2022. PMID: 36420414 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.World J Urol. 2018 Nov;36(11):1783-1793. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2320-9. Epub 2018 May 5. World J Urol. 2018. PMID: 29730839 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Prospective comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in patients with non-lower pole kidney stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.Urolithiasis. 2023 Feb 16;51(1):38. doi: 10.1007/s00240-023-01412-y. Urolithiasis. 2023. PMID: 36795174 Free PMC article.
-
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Aug 1;8(8):CD007044. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007044.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 37526261 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Chaussy C., Schmiedt E., Jocham D., Brendel W., Forssmann B., Walther V. First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J Urol. 1982;127:417–420. - PubMed
-
- Riedler I., Trummer H., Hebel P., Hubmer G. Outcome and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as first-line therapy of lower pole nephrolithiasis. Urol Int. 2003;71:350–354. - PubMed
-
- Zanetti G.R., Montanari E., Guarneri A., Trinchieri A., Mandressi A., Ceresoli A. Long-term followup after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment of kidney stones in solitary kidneys. J Urol. 1992;148:1011–1014. - PubMed
-
- Srisubat A., Potisat S., Lojanapiwat B., Setthawong V., Laopaiboon M. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;11 CD007044. - PubMed
-
- Mi Y., Ren K., Pan H. Flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) with holmium laser versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stone <2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2016;44:353–365. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources