What is the preferred management of lower ureteral stones? SWL or URS - a critical evaluation with an emphasis on the changes in patient's quality of life.

IF 2 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Erhan Erdoğan, Alper Aşık, Hikmet Yaşar, Göksu Sarıca, Kemal Sarıca
{"title":"What is the preferred management of lower ureteral stones? SWL or URS - a critical evaluation with an emphasis on the changes in patient's quality of life.","authors":"Erhan Erdoğan, Alper Aşık, Hikmet Yaşar, Göksu Sarıca, Kemal Sarıca","doi":"10.1007/s00240-025-01693-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To compare the efficacy and safety of two treatment methods for lower ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic treatment (URS), with a focus on the impact on patients' Quality of Life (QoL). A total of 174 patients with solitary radiopaque lower ureteral stones (5-10 mm) between July 2023 and October 2024 were treated with SWL (78 patients) or URS (96 patients). Stone-free (SF) status was evaluated at 3 months using Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT). Data included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), stone size, and post-procedural analgesic requirement. QoL was measured using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) index. Although SF rates were significantly higher in the URS group (96.9% vs. 84.6%, p = 0.009), comparable SF rates for stones < 10 mm and symptom-free status during long-term follow-up suggest that SWL remains a valuable alternative. Additionally, 96.2% of patients expressed willingness to choose SWL again, highlighting patient satisfaction. SWL produced similar results to URS in physical functioning and general health, but URS showed better outcomes in pain and emotional well-being, possibly due to residual stone fragments. SWL offers advantages such as shorter recovery times, reduced need for pain medication, and no requirement for general anesthesia, making it a preferred option for patients seeking non-invasive treatment. Both methods showed similar outcomes in QoL, particularly in physical functioning and general health, demonstrating that SWL is an effective non-invasive treatment for lower ureteric stones.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"53 1","pages":"29"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-025-01693-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To compare the efficacy and safety of two treatment methods for lower ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic treatment (URS), with a focus on the impact on patients' Quality of Life (QoL). A total of 174 patients with solitary radiopaque lower ureteral stones (5-10 mm) between July 2023 and October 2024 were treated with SWL (78 patients) or URS (96 patients). Stone-free (SF) status was evaluated at 3 months using Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT). Data included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), stone size, and post-procedural analgesic requirement. QoL was measured using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) index. Although SF rates were significantly higher in the URS group (96.9% vs. 84.6%, p = 0.009), comparable SF rates for stones < 10 mm and symptom-free status during long-term follow-up suggest that SWL remains a valuable alternative. Additionally, 96.2% of patients expressed willingness to choose SWL again, highlighting patient satisfaction. SWL produced similar results to URS in physical functioning and general health, but URS showed better outcomes in pain and emotional well-being, possibly due to residual stone fragments. SWL offers advantages such as shorter recovery times, reduced need for pain medication, and no requirement for general anesthesia, making it a preferred option for patients seeking non-invasive treatment. Both methods showed similar outcomes in QoL, particularly in physical functioning and general health, demonstrating that SWL is an effective non-invasive treatment for lower ureteric stones.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urolithiasis
Urolithiasis UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Official Journal of the International Urolithiasis Society The journal aims to publish original articles in the fields of clinical and experimental investigation only within the sphere of urolithiasis and its related areas of research. The journal covers all aspects of urolithiasis research including the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetics, clinical biochemistry, open and non-invasive surgical intervention, nephrological investigation, chemistry and prophylaxis of the disorder. The Editor welcomes contributions on topics of interest to urologists, nephrologists, radiologists, clinical biochemists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, basic scientists and nurses working in that field. Contributions may be submitted as full-length articles or as rapid communications in the form of Letters to the Editor. Articles should be original and should contain important new findings from carefully conducted studies designed to produce statistically significant data. Please note that we no longer publish articles classified as Case Reports. Editorials and review articles may be published by invitation from the Editorial Board. All submissions are peer-reviewed. Through an electronic system for the submission and review of manuscripts, the Editor and Associate Editors aim to make publication accessible as quickly as possible to a large number of readers throughout the world.
×
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