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
. 2021 Feb 2:25:5-10.
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.01.001. eCollection 2021 Mar.

Effectiveness of Flexible Ureterorenoscopy Versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi of 5-15 mm: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Christian Daniel Fankhauser  1 , Damian Weber  1 , Michael Müntener  1 , Cedric Poyet  1 , Tullio Sulser  1 , Thomas Hermanns  1
Affiliations

Effectiveness of Flexible Ureterorenoscopy Versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi of 5-15 mm: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Christian Daniel Fankhauser et al. Eur Urol Open Sci. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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