Comparison of Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Ureteroscopy for the Treatment of Proximal Ureteric Stone
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i4.2026Keywords:
Efficacy, Extracorporeal Shock Wave, Lithotripsy Ureteroscopy, Proximal Ureteric Stone.Abstract
Background: Proximal ureteric stones are a common urological problem requiring timely and effective management. Among the available interventions, Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Ureteroscopy (URS) are two widely used techniques, each with its own advantages and limitations. Objective: To compare the efficacy of ESWL and URS in the treatment of proximal ureteric stones, defined by complete stone clearance on ultrasound three weeks post-procedure. Methods: This observational cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Urology, Balochistan Institute of Nephro-Urology, Quetta, over a six-month period. A total of 60 patients aged 17–60 years with single proximal ureteric stones (9–15 mm on CT KUB) were randomized into two groups: Group A (URS) and Group B (ESWL). All procedures were performed by a single experienced urologist. Stone-free status was assessed via ultrasound at three weeks post-intervention. Results: The stone clearance rate in the URS group was significantly higher (93.3%) compared to the ESWL group (60%) with a p-value of 0.003, indicating statistical significance. Complication rates were higher in the URS group, but generally mild and manageable. Conclusion: Ureteroscopy is significantly more effective than ESWL for the treatment of proximal ureteric stones, especially in cases with larger or harder stones. While ESWL remains a valuable non-invasive option, URS provides a higher stone-free rate and should be considered the preferred first-line treatment when appropriate.
Downloads
References
1. Santanapipatkul K, Jantakun W, Tanthanuch M. Urinary tract stone analysis in Loei province. Insight Urology. 2019;40(2):09–18.
https://doi.org/10.52786/isu.a.44
2. Bagtug F, Albag A, Tulpar S, Yildirim ZN, Cicek N, Gunay N, et al. Comparison of infants and children with urolithiasis: A large case series. Urolithiasis. 2022;50(4):411–421.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01327-0
3. Tahir NL, Hassan QA, Kamber HM. Prevalence of clinically silent nephrolithiasis in Baghdad: An ultrasound screening study. Acta Med Iran. 2019;51(6):341–346.
https://doi.org/10.18502/acta.v57i1.1753
4. Piergentili R, Basile G, et al. ncRNAs as therapeutic tools in urolithiasis. J Mol Med. 2022;100(16):9353–9365.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23169353
5. Elmekresh A, Tsai L, Villarreal V, Hyder Z, Lowry PS, El Tayeb MM. Safety and efficacy of sequential balloon dilation prior to ureteral access sheath insertion. Baylor Univ Med Center Proc. 2022;35(2):168–171.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2021.1997043
6. Nguyen DB, Hnilicka S, Kiss B, Seiler R, Thalmann GN, Roth B. Optimization of ESWL delivery rates: A prospective randomized trial. J Urol. 2015;194(2):418–423.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.110
7. Yilmaz AH, Cinislioğlu A. Contribution of ureteral access sheath to efficacy of semirigid URS in upper ureteral stones <2 cm. Cumhuriyet Med J. 2022;44(1):75–79.
https://doi.org/10.7197/cmj.944685
8. Mustafa G, Mahar NA, Qureshi MMH, Fayaz M, Hassan AS. Comparison of ESWL with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones. Age. 2024;39(14.06):41–45.
9. Sarwar MA, Khan F, Soomro N, Ahmed I, Aslam MM, Arain AA, Murtaza HB. Comparison of ESWL vs. URS in proximal ureteric stones. J Univ Med Dent Coll. 2023;14(4).
https://doi.org/10.37723/jumdc.v14i4.813
10. Türk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):475–482.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041
11. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, et al. Surgical management of stones: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2016;196(4):1153–1160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
12. Tzelves L, Kamphuis G, Hu X, et al. Outcomes of ureteroscopy: An international prospective study. World J Urol. 2021;39(2):553–559.
13. Hyams ES, Shah O. Evaluation and follow-up of the stone patient. Urol Clin North Am. 2013;40(1):35–47.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-010-0092-x
14. Pace KT, Ghiculete D, Harju M, Honey RJ. Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute. J Urol. 2005;174(2):595–599.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000165156.90011.95
15. Pearle MS, Nadler R, Bercowsky E, et al. Prospective randomized trial of ESWL vs. URS for distal ureteral stones. J Urol. 2001;166(4):1255–1260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)65748-5
16. Seitz C, Liatsikos E, Porpiglia F, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopy: European Association of Urology guidelines. Eur Urol. 2009;56(4):618–629.
17. Jain A, Sood R, Goel A, Sankhwar S. URS vs. ESWL in proximal ureteric stones: A comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(3):PC04–PC06.
18. Singh V, Sinha RJ, Sankhwar SN, et al. URS versus ESWL for proximal ureteral stones: Prospective comparative trial. Urol Int. 2014;92(3):275–279.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000353973
19. El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Elshal AM, et al. Risk factors of ureteral stricture after URS. J Urol. 2009;181(4):1616–1620.
20. Turney BW. Trends in urolithiasis. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22(2):148–153.
21. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al. 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2418–2434.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.107
22. Tzortzis V, Mamoulakis C, Rioja J, et al. Complications and outcomes of URS for proximal ureteric stones. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41(4):671–678.
23. Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG. Kidney stone disease: An update on epidemiology. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2010;19(4):385–391.
24. Moe OW. Kidney stones: Pathophysiology and management. Lancet. 2006;367(9507):333–344.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68071-9
25. Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ. Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51(4):899–906.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.020
26. Scales CD, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Prevalence of kidney stones in the USA. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):160–165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.052
27. Singh A, Alter HJ, Littlepage A. Stone clearance after ESWL vs. URS. West J Emerg Med. 2011;12(2):238–243.
28. Mariani AJ. Combined ureteroscopy and ESWL. Urology. 1995;45(4):528–533.
29. Dretler SP. Stone fragility and ESWL outcomes. J Endourol. 1994;8(2):141–143.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-1977-2_27
30. Lee HJ, Kim SW, Lee KR, et al. Predictors of success after ESWL for upper ureteral stones. Korean J Urol. 2010;51(10):690–695.
31. Tawfiek ER, Bagley DH. Ureteroscopic management of ureteral stones. J Endourol. 1998;12(2):121–124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00462-2
32. Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K, et al. Systematic review of complications after ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2017;31(10):893–902.
33. Yoon BI, Park J, Park S, et al. Predictors of stone-free rate after URS. Urolithiasis. 2013;41(6):507–512.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
