{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
A Comparison of Ureterorenoscopy and Extra-Corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for the Treatment Of Upper Ureteric Stone Measuring Less than 1cm.
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