Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficiency and safety of ureteroscopy lithotripsy (URSL) with holmium laser technology and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) on ureteral calculi using systematic reviews. Methods: Randomized controlled trials and prospective controlled trials accorded with inclusion among PubMed Database, EmBase Database, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were collected. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted. Pooled estimate of risk ratios and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs were used as measures of effect sizes. Results: Finally 1,770 patients were included in the 14 studies, which eventually satisfied the eligibility criteria. The number of patients in URSL group and ESWL group were 885 and 885, respectively. The results of heterogeneity test suggested that complication events (RR 1.12 (95% CI 0.63-2.00), p = 0.70), hospital days (SMD = -0.08 (95% CI -1.14 to 0.98), p = 0.88) and efficiency quotient (RR 1.31 (95% CI 0.96-1.80), p = 0.09) were insignificantly different, while the stone-free rate (RR 1.15 (95% CI 1.06-1.26), p = 0.002) and operation time (SMD = -2.27 (95% CI -3.42 to -1.11), p = 0.0001) between ESWL and URSL were significantly different. Conclusion: Although both URSL and ESWL have its own advantages and drawbacks, URSL is relatively a more efficient and safe method to treat ureteric stones, since it has shorter operation time and a better stone-free rate.

Keywords:
Ureteroscopy lithotripsy with holmium laser, Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, Ureteral calculi
1.
Ko YH, JI YS, et al: Procalcitonin determined at emergency department as an early indicator of progression to septic shock in patient with sepsis associated with ureteral calculi. Int Braz J Urol 2016;42:270-276.
2.
Cone EB, et al: Cost-effectiveness comparison of ureteral calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy. World J Urol 2016, Epub ahead of print.
3.
Alcántara Montero A, Sánchez Carnerero CI: [Silodosin in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculi]. Semergen 2016;pii:S1138-3593(16)00083-6.
4.
Ichiyanagi O, et al: Erratum to: age-related delay in urinary stone clearance in elderly patients with solitary proximal ureteral calculi treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urolithiasis 2016;44:193-194.
5.
Akin Y, et al: Impact of using thiocolchicoside during endoscopic ureteral calculi removal: a preliminary study. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2016;25:29-34.
6.
Teleb M, et al: Definitive ureteroscopy and intracorporeal lithotripsy in treatment of ureteral calculi during pregnancy. Arab J Urol 2014;12:299-303.
7.
Park J, et al: Comparison of treatment outcomes according to output voltage during shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized multicenter study. World J Urol 2015;33:609-615.
8.
Joshi HN, et al: Outcomes of extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy in renal and ureteral calculi. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2014;12:51-54.
9.
Seklehner S, et al: Does a retrograde pyelography prior to ureteroscopy influence stone-free rates and complication rates in ureteral calculi? Urol Int 2015;94:166-172.
10.
Liu Y, et al: Clinical observation of different minimally invasive surgeries for the treatment of impacted upper ureteral calculi. Pak J Med Sci 2013;29:1358-1362.
11.
Lee SW, et al: Effect of tamsulosin on stone expulsion in proximal ureteral calculi: an open-label randomized controlled trial. Int J Clin Pract 2014;68:216-212.
12.
Gupta S, et al: Comparing the efficacy of tamsulosin and silodosin in the medical expulsion therapy for ureteral calculi. J Clin Diagn Res 2013;7:1672-1674.
13.
Cai J, Tang Z, Niu B: Comparison of the effect of holmium laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi. China Mod Doct 2014;52:21-23.
14.
Fan M, Yang C, Zeng A: Treatment of ureteral calculis: comparison between ureteroscopy with holmium YAG laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wove lithotripsy. Suzhou Univ J Med Sci 2007;27:411-413.
15.
Xiang YQ, Xie W: Comparison of the efficacy of holmium laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones. China Mod Doct 2013;51:25-27.
16.
Yin X, Wang W, Hu Y, Yang B: The efficacy comparison of holmium laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi. China Mod Doct 2014;52:33-35.
17.
Lin SQ, Song Z, Zeng A: Observation of the efficacy of holmium laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Contemporary Med 2015;21:52-53.
18.
Bai HQ, He: Comparison of efficacy between YAG laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones. China Foreign Med Treat 2015.23:64-66.
19.
Peng C, Yang J, An D: Comparison study of holmium laser lithotripsy under ureteroscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of ureteral calculi. Prog Mod Biomed 2016;16:1095-1097.
20.
Khalil M: Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy. Urol Ann 2013;5:88-92.
21.
Lam JS, Greene TD, Gupta M: Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2002;167:1972-1976.
22.
Lopes Neto AC, et al: Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy. J Urol 2012;187:164-168.
23.
Lee YH, et al: Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for management of large upper third ureteral stones. Urology 2006;67:480-484; discussion 484.
24.
Honeck P, et al: Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Urol Res 2006;34:190-192.
25.
Hendrikx AJ, Strijbos WE, de Knijff DW, Kums JJ, Doesburg WH, et al: Treatment for extended-mid and distal ureteral stones: SWL or ureteroscopy? Results of a multicenter study. J Endourol 1999;13:727-733.
26.
Verze P, et al: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy as first-line therapy for patients with single, distal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study. BJU Int 2010;106:1748-1752.
27.
Razzaghi MR, et al: Safety and efficacy of pneumatic lithotripters versus holmium laser in management of ureteral calculi: a randomized clinical trial. Urol J 2013;10:762-765.
28.
Song Y, Fei X, Song Y: Diagnosis and operative intervention for problematic ureteral calculi during pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013;121:115-118.
29.
Sun L, Peng FL: Treatment of ipsilateral renal ureteral calculi by combining retroperitoneal laparoscopic surgery with tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int 2013;90:139-143.
30.
Junuzovic D, et al: Evaluation of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL): efficacy in treatment of urinary system stones. Acta Inform Med 2014;22:309-314.
31.
Younesi Rostami M, Taghipour-Gorgikolai M, Sharifian R: Treatment of kidney stones using extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and double-J stent in infants. Adv Urol 2012;2012:589038.
32.
Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, Lin CL, Chen CS: Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol 2004;172(5 pt 1):1899-1902.
33.
Geraghty R, Abourmarzouk O, Rai B, Biyani CS, Rukin NJ, Somani BK: Evidence for ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation (URSL) for large renal stones in the modern era. Curr Urol Rep 2015;16:54.
34.
Ghosh A, Somani BK: Safety and feasibility of day case ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy (URSL) in patients with a solitary kidney. Cent European J Urol 2016;69:91-95.
35.
Geraghty R, et al: Evidence for ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation (URSL) for large renal stones in the modern era. Curr Urol Rep 2015;16:54.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.