Русский
Comprehensive comparative assessment of the results of treatment of patients with ureteral stones using two different methods
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/urology.2024.1.49-55
Giyasov Sh.I., Rakhimbaev A.A., Ziyayev I.B.
1) Republican Specialized Scientific and Practical Medical Center of Urology, Tashkent, Uzbekistan); 2) «Tashkent Medical Academy»
Aim. To improve treatment outcomes in patients with ureteral stones by optimizing the use of noninvasive and minimally invasive techniques.
Material and methods. A prospective analysis of 186 patients with ureteral stones who were treated at the “RSSPMCU” in the period from July 2020 to April 2023 was carried out. Among them, 84 were undergone to electromagnetic extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) using the Storz Modulith SLX-F2 device (Switzerland). A procedure was performed under ataralgesia. The mean stone size was 8.54±2.79 (4-16 mm). The average amount of shock waves per stone was 2436±247.78. The session duration was 19.37±1.86 minutes.
Endoscopic procedures were performed in 102 patients. Among them, 49 stones were removed using the ureteroscopy (URS), while in 49 and 4 cases percutaneous access (PCNL) and a combination of PCNL and URS under spinal anesthesia were done, respectively. The mean stone size was 11.46±4.26 (5-26 mm). Holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy was performed. The duration of the procedure was 63.38±17.48 min.
Results. The stone density of patients undergoing ESWL was 855±319.84 HU, while those undergoing endoscopic procedures was 943.78±319.48 HU (p>0.05). The absorbed dose with ESWL was 18.73±4.15 mGy compared to 31.42±1.40 mGy for endoscopic procedures (p<0.001). A length of stay was 1.0±0.0 and 2.75+0.1, respectively (p<0.001).
After 7-10 days, the stone free rate (SFR) was 76.2% (n=64) after ESWL and 99.02% (n=101) after endoscopic interventions (p<0.05). In the ESWL group, 3 patients received second session of ESWL for residual stones and in 9 cases URS was done. The SFR was 100% on day 45. In patients after endoscopic interventions, 1 patient underwent URS and SFR was 100% on the 15th day.
Conclusion. In general, the endoscopic technique is superior to ESWL in patients with ureteral stones both in terms of SFR and duration of procedure, but is inferior in safety due to invasiveness and the absorbed dose.
In our opinion, the key indication for endoscopic treatment should be stone size greater than 6 mm, density more than 1000 HU, and patient preference.
Material and methods. A prospective analysis of 186 patients with ureteral stones who were treated at the “RSSPMCU” in the period from July 2020 to April 2023 was carried out. Among them, 84 were undergone to electromagnetic extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) using the Storz Modulith SLX-F2 device (Switzerland). A procedure was performed under ataralgesia. The mean stone size was 8.54±2.79 (4-16 mm). The average amount of shock waves per stone was 2436±247.78. The session duration was 19.37±1.86 minutes.
Endoscopic procedures were performed in 102 patients. Among them, 49 stones were removed using the ureteroscopy (URS), while in 49 and 4 cases percutaneous access (PCNL) and a combination of PCNL and URS under spinal anesthesia were done, respectively. The mean stone size was 11.46±4.26 (5-26 mm). Holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy was performed. The duration of the procedure was 63.38±17.48 min.
Results. The stone density of patients undergoing ESWL was 855±319.84 HU, while those undergoing endoscopic procedures was 943.78±319.48 HU (p>0.05). The absorbed dose with ESWL was 18.73±4.15 mGy compared to 31.42±1.40 mGy for endoscopic procedures (p<0.001). A length of stay was 1.0±0.0 and 2.75+0.1, respectively (p<0.001).
After 7-10 days, the stone free rate (SFR) was 76.2% (n=64) after ESWL and 99.02% (n=101) after endoscopic interventions (p<0.05). In the ESWL group, 3 patients received second session of ESWL for residual stones and in 9 cases URS was done. The SFR was 100% on day 45. In patients after endoscopic interventions, 1 patient underwent URS and SFR was 100% on the 15th day.
Conclusion. In general, the endoscopic technique is superior to ESWL in patients with ureteral stones both in terms of SFR and duration of procedure, but is inferior in safety due to invasiveness and the absorbed dose.
In our opinion, the key indication for endoscopic treatment should be stone size greater than 6 mm, density more than 1000 HU, and patient preference.
About the Autors
Corresponding author: Sh.I. Giyasov – Ph.D., MD, professor at the Department of Urology of Tashkent Medical Academy, consultant at RSSPMCU, Tashkent, Uzbekistan; e-mail: dr.sh.giyasov@gmail.com
Similar Articles
