files/journal/2022-09-03_18-51-40-000000_599.png

Research Journal of Medical Sciences

ISSN: Online 1993-6095
ISSN: Print 1815-9346
About US
Editors
Issues
Pages
Indexed in
235
Views
6
Downloads

Comparison Between Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopic Stone Extraction in the Treatment of Ureteral Stones: An Observational Study

ChetanKumar Ramesh Tikar, Anup Prakash Bidarahalli and Deepti Nandkumar Mahoorkar
Page: 667-672 | Received 10 Nov 2024, Published online: 30 Dec 2024

Download Citation
https://doi.org/10.36478/makrjms.2024.12.667.672

Full Text Reference XML File PDF File

Abstract

Ureteral stones are a prevalent urological condition causing significant morbidity, including acute pain and urinary obstruction. Effective management is essential to alleviate symptoms, prevent complications, and restore normal urinary function. Among treatment modalities, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic stone extraction (URS) are widely used, offering distinct advantages and limitations based on stone characteristics and patient factors. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy, safety profiles and patient outcomes of ESWL and URS for the management of ureteral stones. The objective was to provide evidence‐based insights to optimize treatment strategies. A longitudinal observational study was conducted at a tertiary healthcare center over one year, including 113 patients with upper and lower ureteral stones ranging from 5 mm to 20 mm in size. Patients underwent either ESWL or URS and outcomes were assessed through clinical evaluations, radiological imaging and follow‐up X‐rays. Data analysis utilized SPSS 16.0 with chi‐square and Student’s t‐tests to determine statistical significance (p<0.05). URS demonstrated superior clearance rates for proximal stones and those larger than 10 mm, achieving complete clearance in 100% of cases compared to ESWL. ESWL was effective for smaller and distal stones, offering a non‐invasive alternative. Postoperative complications were mild and comparable across both groups. Follow‐up outcomes indicated a higher stone clearance rate for URS, reducing the need for repeat interventions. Both ESWL and URS are effective for ureteral stone management, with treatment selection dependent on stone size, location and patient preferences. URS is recommended for larger and proximal stones due to its higher efficacy, while ESWL remains viable for smaller, distal stones or non‐invasive preferences. Individualized treatment planning is essential for optimal outcomes.

How to cite this article:

ChetanKumar Ramesh Tikar, Anup Prakash Bidarahalli and Deepti Nandkumar Mahoorkar. Comparison Between Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopic Stone Extraction in the Treatment of Ureteral Stones: An Observational Study.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36478/10.36478/makrjms.2024.12.667.672
URL: https://www.makhillpublications.co/view-article/1815-9346/10.36478/makrjms.2024.12.667.672