AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightObjective: This study aimed to compare shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) with ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) for ureteral stones in terms of stone-freerates, complication rates, and overall treatment costs.Materials and Methods: Data of 886 adult patients who underwent URS or SWL were retrospectively evaluated, of which 184 patients underwentSWL and 702 underwent URS.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Özet
Objective: This study aimed to compare shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) with ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) for ureteral stones in terms of stone-freerates, complication rates, and overall treatment costs.Materials and Methods: Data of 886 adult patients who underwent URS or SWL were retrospectively evaluated, of which 184 patients underwentSWL and 702 underwent URS. The groups were compared in terms of patient characteristics, stone-free rates, complications, and costs.Results: No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of age, gender, and relevant sides (p>0.05). A significant differencewas observed in favor of SWL for upper ureteral stones <10 mm regarding treatment success (p=0.018), and no significant difference was observedbetween the two groups in terms of mid- and distal ureteral stones (p=1 and p=0.655, respectively). Complications were classified according to themodified Clavien-Dindo grading system. No major complications were observed in the two groups, except for one patient with Clavien-Dindo gradeIVa complication. SWL was significantly more economical than URS (p<0.001).Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that SWL can be recommended as the primary treatment option for upper ureteral stones <10 mmbecause of its high stone-free rates and low overall costs.