Browsing by Author "Gyawali, D"
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Publication Management of Proximal Ureteric Stones: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) Versus Ureterorenoscopic Lithotripsy (URSL)(Kathmandu University, 2017) Joshi, HN; Shrestha, B; Karmacharya, RM; Makaju, S; Koju, R; Gyawali, DABSTRACT Background Urolithiasis is the third most common disease of the urinary tract after urinary tract infections and pathologic conditions of prostate. Debate is ongoing regarding the effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy (URSL) in the management of ureteral stones. Objective We aim to compare the efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureterorenoscopic Lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteric stones in terms of stone clearance. Method This prospective hospital based study included patients with upper ureteric calculus managed with Ureterorenoscopic Lithortripsy with Double J stenting or Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy at Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University Hospital from August 2014 to July 2015. Stone size, stone clearance, number of sittings, complications and need of other procedure were recorded. Result There were 90 patients with upper ureteric calculus. Among these patients, 45 patients underwent Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and 45 patients underwent Ureterorenoscopic Lithotripsy. There was no difference in male/female ratio, age and stone diameter between two groups (p>0.05). Total stone-free ratio was 88.9% (40/45) for Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and 82.2% (37/45) for URSL, partial fragmentation requiring shift of modality of treatment was 8.88% (4/45) for Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and 13.33% (6/45) for Ureterorenoscopic Lithotripsy. Failure of procedure was noted in 11.1% in Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy group and 17.8% in URSL group In the Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy group, 8.89% (4 out of 45) patients required Ureterorenoscopic Lithotripsy for complete stone clearance. Complete stone clearance could not be achieved in 2.23% (1 out of 45) patient with both Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureterorenoscopic Lithotripsy and had to undergo open ureterolithotomy. Conclusion Both Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureterorenoscopic Lithotripsy are equally effective in the management of upper ureteric calculus with no significant difference in age, male/female ratio, stone diameter and stone free ratio. KEY WORDS Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, Ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy, Ureteric stone