Aim: To compare the efficacy and complications of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) and pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi. Methods: From August 1997 to June...Aim: To compare the efficacy and complications of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) and pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi. Methods: From August 1997 to June 1999, 210 patients with calculi in the distal third of the ureter were treated with SWL and the other 180 with URS. The stones were fragmented with either HB-ESWL-V lithotripter or JML-93 pneumatic lithotripter through Wolf 7.5～9.0 Fr ureteroscope. The outcome was assessed in terms of stone clearance rate, re-treatment rate and complication incidence. Results: The stone clearance rate was 78.1% with SWL and 93.3 % with URS (P<0.05). SWL had a re-treatment rate of 11.9 %, vs 2.2 % in the URS group (P<.05). URS caused ureteral perforation in 3.3% of patients, while it was 0 with SWL (P<0.05). The differences in the incidence of other complications such as infection and stricture between the two groups were insignificant. Conclusion: Though the selection of these two options depends on equipments available and the expertise of the operator, we recommend URS as the optimal treatment for distal ureteral calculi. (Asian J Andro12002 Dec, 4: 303-305)展开更多
文摘Aim: To compare the efficacy and complications of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) and pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi. Methods: From August 1997 to June 1999, 210 patients with calculi in the distal third of the ureter were treated with SWL and the other 180 with URS. The stones were fragmented with either HB-ESWL-V lithotripter or JML-93 pneumatic lithotripter through Wolf 7.5～9.0 Fr ureteroscope. The outcome was assessed in terms of stone clearance rate, re-treatment rate and complication incidence. Results: The stone clearance rate was 78.1% with SWL and 93.3 % with URS (P<0.05). SWL had a re-treatment rate of 11.9 %, vs 2.2 % in the URS group (P<.05). URS caused ureteral perforation in 3.3% of patients, while it was 0 with SWL (P<0.05). The differences in the incidence of other complications such as infection and stricture between the two groups were insignificant. Conclusion: Though the selection of these two options depends on equipments available and the expertise of the operator, we recommend URS as the optimal treatment for distal ureteral calculi. (Asian J Andro12002 Dec, 4: 303-305)
