Erhan Erdoğan, Alper Aşık, Hikmet Yaşar, Göksu Sarıca, Kemal Sarıca
{"title":"输尿管下段结石的首选治疗方法是什么?SWL或URS -一个关键的评估,强调患者生活质量的变化。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
比较冲击波碎石(shock wave lithotripsy, SWL)和输尿管镜治疗(ureteroscopic treatment, URS)两种治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效和安全性,重点分析对患者生活质量(Quality of Life, QoL)的影响。在2023年7月至2024年10月期间,共有174例单发输尿管下段结石(5-10 mm)患者接受了SWL(78例)或URS(96例)治疗。3个月时使用非对比计算机断层扫描(NCCT)评估无结石(SF)状态。数据包括年龄、性别、体重指数(BMI)、结石大小和术后镇痛需求。生活质量采用SF-36 (Short Form-36)指数测定。尽管尿路结石组的SF率明显更高(96.9% vs. 84.6%, p = 0.009),但结石组的SF率也相当
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.
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.
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.