Search

Objective: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of ureteroscopic (URS) pneumatic lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the management of the proximal ureteral stones in terms of stone- free rates, complications and costs involved., Material and Methods: We included 200 patients in Group 1 who underwent ESWL and 200 patients in Group 2 who underwent URS intervention. We used Modulith SL X lithotripter 3 rd generation Storz medical for ESWL group while Swiss pneumatic lithoclast was used to break the stone in the URS group. Stone-free status was defined as stone fragment of less than 4 mm on follow- up kidney ureter and bladder X-ray after 3 months of procedure. SPSS version 16 was used for statistical analysis., Results: The mean age in ESWL and URS groups were 39.21±13.36, and 43.13±13.65 years respectively. Mean stone size was 10.47±3.7 mm (ESWL) and 13.6±6.6 mm (URS). Stone- free rate after single procedure was (125/200 patients) 62.5% for ESWL and (168/200 patients) 84% for URS group (p=0.001). Complications included post procedure sepsis in 3 (1.5%) patient of ESWL, while 7 (3.5%) patients of URS groups. Steinstrasse was seen in 4 (2%) patients of ESWL group. No mortality was seen in both groups. Mean costs for ESWL were US $320±50 while US $1100±150 for URS group (p=0.001)., Conclusion: The stone-free rates after single procedure were significantly higher for the URS group while the complication rates were comparable in both groups. Treatment costs were significantly lower for the ESWL group.