A Comparison of Ureterorenoscopy and Extra-Corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for the Treatment Of Upper Ureteric Stone Measuring Less than 1cm.

Dr Shabbir Hussain Chaudhry
{"title":"A Comparison of Ureterorenoscopy and Extra-Corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for the Treatment Of Upper Ureteric Stone Measuring Less than 1cm.","authors":"Dr Shabbir Hussain Chaudhry","doi":"10.61982/medera.v5i2.129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Ureterorenoscopy (URS) in the management of upper ureteric stone measuring <1cm. Methodology: Randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted by targeting the patient admitted in urology ward, Jinnah Hospital Lahorethrough a period of one year. A sample size of 132 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were selected by employing Non-probability consecutive sampling technique was employed to select 132 (sample size) patients fulfilling inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups (66 in each group A&B) using lottery method. In group-A, stones were treated using ESWL, while in group-B, URS was performed, and stones were broken with pneumatic energy. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27, and a Chi-square test was conducted to compare the proportions of qualitative variables, while an independent sample t-test was applied to assess mean differences between two groups of quantitative variables. Asignificance level of ≤0.05 was adopted for determining statistical significance. Results: The sociodemographic profile of the two groups was comparable. It was seen that stone free rate nextto first session was higher in URS (81.8%) as compared to ESWL (63.6%) which later increased to 87.7% after completion of three session. The complaint of pain in ESWL was more as compared to URS (22.7% vs 12.1% p= 0.05)while the differences betweenthe rate of complications like fever, UTI, mucosal abrasion, hematuria or perforation were not statistically significant in both group. (p> 0.05) Conclusion: ESWL outperforms URS for the treatment of upper ureteric stones measuring <1cm in terms of efficacy and safety.Although not statistically significant, ourfindings suggest that URS achieves stone-free rates earlier than ESWL. However, according to our findings, ESWL is recommended as the treatment of choice for the majority of patients due to better compliance. Keywords: Extra-corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Nephrolithiasis, Ureterorenoscopy","PeriodicalId":518328,"journal":{"name":"MedERA - Journal of CMH LMC and IOD","volume":"196 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedERA - Journal of CMH LMC and IOD","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61982/medera.v5i2.129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Ureterorenoscopy (URS) in the management of upper ureteric stone measuring <1cm. Methodology: Randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted by targeting the patient admitted in urology ward, Jinnah Hospital Lahorethrough a period of one year. A sample size of 132 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were selected by employing Non-probability consecutive sampling technique was employed to select 132 (sample size) patients fulfilling inclusion criteria. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups (66 in each group A&B) using lottery method. In group-A, stones were treated using ESWL, while in group-B, URS was performed, and stones were broken with pneumatic energy. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27, and a Chi-square test was conducted to compare the proportions of qualitative variables, while an independent sample t-test was applied to assess mean differences between two groups of quantitative variables. Asignificance level of ≤0.05 was adopted for determining statistical significance. Results: The sociodemographic profile of the two groups was comparable. It was seen that stone free rate nextto first session was higher in URS (81.8%) as compared to ESWL (63.6%) which later increased to 87.7% after completion of three session. The complaint of pain in ESWL was more as compared to URS (22.7% vs 12.1% p= 0.05)while the differences betweenthe rate of complications like fever, UTI, mucosal abrasion, hematuria or perforation were not statistically significant in both group. (p> 0.05) Conclusion: ESWL outperforms URS for the treatment of upper ureteric stones measuring <1cm in terms of efficacy and safety.Although not statistically significant, ourfindings suggest that URS achieves stone-free rates earlier than ESWL. However, according to our findings, ESWL is recommended as the treatment of choice for the majority of patients due to better compliance. Keywords: Extra-corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Nephrolithiasis, Ureterorenoscopy
输尿管造影术与体外冲击波碎石术治疗小于 1 厘米的输尿管上段结石的比较。
目的比较体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)和输尿管镜检查术(URS)治疗输尿管上段结石的疗效:在治疗直径小于 1 厘米的输尿管上段结石方面,ESWL 的疗效和安全性均优于 URS。尽管没有统计学意义,但我们的研究结果表明 URS 比 ESWL 更早达到无结石率。然而,根据我们的研究结果,由于 ESWL 的依从性更好,建议大多数患者选择 ESWL 治疗。关键词体外冲击波碎石 肾结石 输尿管镜检查
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信