Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi: A prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes

Czech version

Authors: J. Park; D. W. Shin; J. H. Chung; S. W. Lee
Published in: Urol List 2013; 11(2): 38-43

Overview

Objektive:
To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with objective outcomes after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic surgery (URS) for ureteral calculi (UC).

Methods:
We prospectively evaluated 160 consecutive patients who underwent SWL (n = 65) or URS (n = 95) for a single radiopaque UC ranging from 4 to 15 mm. For patients who underwent URS, a 6-Fr double-J stent was routinely placed for 2 weeks after surgery. To examene PRO, we used a self-administered nonvalidated questionnaire evaluating overall satisfaction and PRO in four domains (pain, hematuria, voiding symptom, and time to return to routine activity) and willingness to undergo the treatment procedure again. Propensity-score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounding by discrepancy of pretreatment parameters between groups. Stone-free rates (SFRs) and complications were also compared.

Results:
SFRs after the first, second, and third sessions of SWL were 61.5, 81.0, and 93.5%, respectively. SFR after URS was 100%, which was significantly better than SFRs for third-session SWL (p = 0.023). Complications were comparable. By propensity-score matching analysis, overall satisfaction was similar between groups, whereas PRO for voiding symptom and time to return to routine aktivity were significantly better in the SWL group (all p ≤ 0.05). The two groups were not different in willingness to undergo the same procedure again.

Conclusions:
Despite significantly higher SFR after URS for UC, overall patient satisfaction was comparable after SWL and URS, meanwhile PRO of the SWL group was better than URS for voiding symptom and time to return to routine activity. In addition of objective treatment outcomes, PROs should be considered in counseling treatment methods for UC.

Key words:
shock wave lithotripsy, satisfaction, ureteroscopy, ureteric calculi

Sources

1. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG et al. 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 2007; 178(6): 2418–2434.

2. Kijvikai K, Haleblian GE, Preminger GM et al. Shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi: an old discussion revisited. J Urol 2007; 178 (4 Pt 1): 1157–1163.

3. Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG et al.Ureteral stones clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. The American Urological Association. J Urol 1997; 158(5): 1915–1921.

4. Matlaga BR. Contemporary surgical management of upper urinary tract calculi. J Urol 2009; 181(5): 2152–2156.

5. Stewart GD, Bariol SV, Moussa SA et al. Matched pair analysis of ureteroscopy vs. shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteric calculi. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61: 784–788.

6. Christian C, Thorsten B. The preferred treatment for upper tract stones is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or ureteroscopic: pro ESWL. Urology 2009; 74(2): 259–262.

7. Salem HK. A prospective randomized study comparing shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi. Urology 2009; 74(6): 1216–1221.

8. Lam JS, Greene TD, Gupta M. Treatment of produmal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2002; 167: 1972–1976.

9. Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY et al. Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol 2004; 172(5 Pt 1): 1899–1902.

10. Wu CF, Chen CS, Lin WY et al. Therapeutic options for proximal ureter stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy. Urology 2005; 65:1075–1079.

11. Barry MJ. Helping patients make better personal health decisions: the promise of patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA 2011; 306(11): 1258–1259.

12. Bhagat SK, Chacko NK, Kekre NS et al. Is there a role for tamsulosin in shock wave lithotripsy for renal and ureteral calculi? J Urol 2007; 177(6): 2185–2188.

13. Zhu Y, Duijvesz D, Rovers MM et al. Alpha-Blockers to assist stone clearance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a meta-analysis. BJU Int 2010; 106(2): 256–261.

14. Beddingfield R, Pedro RN, Hinck B et al. Alfuzosin to relieve ureteral stent discomfort: a prospective, randomized, placebo controlled study. J Urol 2009; 181(1): 170–176.

15. Damiano R, Autorino R, De Sio M et al. Effect of tamsulosin in preventing ureteral stent-related morbidity: a prospective study. J Endourol 2008; 22(4): 651–656.

16. Park J, Hong B, Park T et al. Effectiveness of noncontrast computed tomography in evaluation of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2007; 21(7): 684–687.

17. D’Agostino RB Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998; 17(19): 2265–2281.

18. Park H, Park M, Park T. Two-year experience with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy v ureteroscopic manipulation. J Endourol 1998; 12(6): 501–504.

19. Parker BD, Frederick RW, Reilly TP et al. Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum- garnet laser. Urology 2004; 64(6): 1102–1106.

20. Pollard SG, Macfarlane R. Symptoms arising from Double-J ureteral stents. J Urol 1988; 139(1): 37–38.

21. Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP et al. Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 2003; 169(3): 1065–1069.

22. Peschel R, Janetschek G, Bartsch G. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 1999; 162: 1909–1912.

23. Pearle MS, Nadler R, Bercowsky E et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol 2001; 166(4): 1255–1260.

24. Ibrahim HM, Al-Kandari AM, Shaaban HS et al. Role of ureteral stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for distal ureteral stones: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol 2008; 180(3): 961–965.

25. Borboroglu PG, Amling CL, Schenkman NS et al. Ureteral stenting after ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a multi-institutional prospective randomized controlled study assessing pain, outcomes and complications. J Urol 2001; 166(5): 1651–1657.

Labels

Paediatric urologist Urology

Pathophysiology of an origin of BPH - Course of hypotheses and theories, curent reality and perspectives

Pharmacotherapy in LUTS/BPH in everyday clinical practise. How to choose the optimal alternative?

The current reality and future prospects of less invasive technology for the treatment of BPH

Treatment and prophylaxis of recurrent lower urinary tract infections

Article was published in

Urological Journal

2013 Issue 2