Comparison of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Ureteroscopic Stone Extraction in the Treatment of Ureteral Stones
Yaşar Bozkurt 1 * , Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar 2, Yakup Bostancı 3, Murat Kapan 3, Hacı Murat Çaycı 3
More Detail
1 Guneydogu Medical Center, Urology department, Diyarbakır, Turkey
2 State Hospital, Urology department, Muş, Turkey
3 State Hospital, Diyarbakır, Turkey
* Corresponding Author


Aim: There are some controversies on the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic stone extraction (URS) in ureteral stones. Because, previous studies on this topic mostly included lower ureteral stones, we aimed to compare effectiveness of these two methods in both lower and upper ureteral stones. Method: After diagnosis of urolithiasis, ESWL or URS was performed to patients. Stone-free ratio, complications and necessity of an additional intervention for both procedures were recorded. The decision about the selection of method was made based on the patients’ choice. Upper and lower ureteral stones were included, while middle ureteral stones were excluded from the study. Result: Total number of patients undergone URS was 90 and ESWL was 96. There was no difference in male/female ratio, age and stone diameters between two groups (P>0.05). Upper ureteral stones were found to be more frequent in ESWL group than those in URS group (55.2% vs. 33.3%, respectively, P=0.004). Total stone-free ratio was 97.8% for URS and 68.8% for ESWL (P<0.001). Ratios of treatment failures and complications were found to be lower in URS group compared with ESWL group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Although, URS seems to be more successful in the treatment of ureteral stones, further prospective studies with more patients are needed to clarify our results.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Original Article

EUR J GEN MED, 2010 - Volume 7 Issue 1, pp. 29-34

Publication date: 12 Jan 2010

Article Views: 791

Article Downloads: 566

Open Access References How to cite this article