Comparison between Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Management of Ureteric Stones

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorDr.Hanood abu Rass
dc.contributor.authorTharaa fawzi daraghma
dc.contributor.authorRasha sabri rabi
dc.contributor.authorMahmoud jihad khalil
dc.contributor.authorAbd Al-Naser Taim Daoud
dc.contributor.authorAmeer niddal aref keadan
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-13T07:02:07Z
dc.date.available2020-08-13T07:02:07Z
dc.date.issued2020-12-29
dc.description.abstractintroduction There are many options for urologists to treat ureteric stones, including extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and Ureteroscopic Laser lithotripsy. While both ESWL and Ureteroscopic Laser lithotripsy are effective and minimally invasive procedures, there is still controversy over which one is more suitable for ureteric stones. Purpose To perform a retrospective study to compare the efficiency, safety and complications using extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy ESWL vs. ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy in management of ureteral stones. Methodology Between January 2017 to june 2019, 128 patients, 91 males (71.1%) and 37 females (28.9%), with an average age of 41.82 years (range: 22-66) who underwent ESWL at Al-Rahma Dispensary or Ureteroscopic Laser lithotripsy at An-Najah Hospital for ureteral stones (size: 7-15mm) were evaluated. The medical records were reviewed and compared in terms of (age, sex, stone site, stone size(mm), stone location, stone-free rate(success rate), treatment time, overall procedural time, costs and complications). All patients were followed up with ultrasound and kidney ureter bladder (KUB) and/or noncontrast-enhanced computer tomography (CT). stone –free rate was defined as complete fragmentation of stones or clinically insignificant residual fragments of <4 mm. Result Similarity in stone-free rate and treatment time between the two procedures; overall procedural time and total cost were significantly different. Renal colic and gross hematuria were more frequent with ESWL while voiding symptoms were more frequent with ureteroscopy. Both procedures used for ureteral stones ranging from 7 to 15 mm were safe and minimally invasive. Conclusion ureteroscopy achieved a greater stone-free. Shock wave lithotripsy achieved lower stone-free rate. ESWL as an outpatient procedure does not require anesthesia; while ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy as a surgical procedure requires general anesthesia, hospitalization and much more costs. Determining which procedure is preferable depends on stone characteristics, patient acceptance and cost-effectiveness ratio.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11888/15404
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectlaser lithotripsy, ESWL, Ureteric stonesen_US
dc.titleComparison between Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Management of Ureteric Stonesen_US
dc.typeGraduation Projecten_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Comparison between Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in Management of Ureteric Stones.pdf
Size:
69.15 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Nursing & Midwifery