Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of middle ureteral stones: are ureteral stents necessary?
- PMID: 7495114
- DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80294-5
Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of middle ureteral stones: are ureteral stents necessary?
Abstract
Objectives: To ascertain whether insertion of a ureteral stent improves the outcome of middle ureteral (overlying the pelvic bone) stones treated with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL).
Methods: Thirty-three patients with middle ureteral stones were treated with ESWL at our institution between October 1991 and October 1994. Twenty-six patients were available for follow-up; 14 patients were treated with stent bypass, 8 were treated in situ, and 4 patients were treated after percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN). All patients were treated initially on an unmodified Dornier HM-3, and all but 4 patients were treated in the prone position on a modified Stryker frame. Follow-up consisted of a plain abdominal radiograph, intravenous urogram, occasionally a retrograde urogram, and a telephone interview.
Results: The overall stone-free rate for ESWL alone was 73%, and the efficiency quotient was 69. The stone-free rates after a single treatment for the stent bypass, in situ, and PCN groups were 71%, 63%, and 75%, respectively. Overall, 4% of patients required retreatment, 19% of patients required an auxiliary procedure, and 8% of the patients required hospital or emergency room admissions for renal colic. For stones 10 mm or greater (9), stone-free rates after one treatment for the stent bypass, in situ, and PCN groups were 33%, 33%, and 67%, respectively; for stones less than 10 mm (17), success rates were 82%, 80%, and 100%, respectively.
Conclusions: Pretreatment stinting provides no advantage over in situ ESWL for middle ureteral calculi (Fisher's exact test, P = 1.0). ESWL is a reasonable initial therapy for middle ureteral stones less than 10 mm.
Similar articles
-
Removal of ureteral stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic procedures. What can we learn from the literature in terms of results and treatment efforts?Urol Res. 2005 Jun;33(3):185-90. doi: 10.1007/s00240-005-0462-x. Epub 2005 May 29. Urol Res. 2005. PMID: 15924257 Review.
-
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in impacted upper ureteral stones: a prospective randomized comparison between stented and non-stented techniques.Urology. 2010 Jan;75(1):45-50. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.071. Epub 2009 Oct 7. Urology. 2010. PMID: 19811806 Clinical Trial.
-
Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser.Urology. 2004 Dec;64(6):1102-6; discussion 1106. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.07.040. Urology. 2004. PMID: 15596177
-
Is pre-shock wave lithotripsy stenting necessary for ureteral stones with moderate or severe hydronephrosis?J Urol. 2006 Nov;176(5):2059-62; discussion 2062. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.022. J Urol. 2006. PMID: 17070256 Clinical Trial.
-
[Treatment of ureteral lithiasis with shock waves].Arch Esp Urol. 2001 Nov;54(9):971-82. Arch Esp Urol. 2001. PMID: 11789374 Review. Spanish.
Cited by
-
Stenting or not prior to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? Results of a prospective randomized study.Int Urol Nephrol. 2012 Jun;44(3):731-7. doi: 10.1007/s11255-011-0062-3. Epub 2011 Sep 30. Int Urol Nephrol. 2012. PMID: 21960371 Clinical Trial.
-
Removal of ureteral stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic procedures. What can we learn from the literature in terms of results and treatment efforts?Urol Res. 2005 Jun;33(3):185-90. doi: 10.1007/s00240-005-0462-x. Epub 2005 May 29. Urol Res. 2005. PMID: 15924257 Review.
-
Comparative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for proximal and distal ureteric stones.Int Urol Nephrol. 2008;40(1):23-9. doi: 10.1007/s11255-007-9214-x. Epub 2007 Jul 24. Int Urol Nephrol. 2008. PMID: 17647086
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources