Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole Caliceal Calculi 1 cm or Less

Margaret S. Pearle, James E. Lingeman, Raymond Leveillee, Ramsay Kuo, Glenn M. Preminger, Robert B. Nadler, Joseph Macaluso, Manoj Monga, Udaya Kumar, John Dushinski, David M. Albala, J. Stuart Wolf, Dean Assimos, Michael Fabrizio, Larry C. Munch, Stephen Y. Nakada, Brian Auge, John Honey, Kenneth Ogan, John Pattaras & 5 others Elspeth M. McDougall, Timothy D. Averch, Thomas Turk, Paul Pietrow, Stephanie Watkins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

80 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The optimal management of lower pole renal calculi is controversial. We compared shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of patients with small lower pole stones in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Materials and Methods: A total of 78 patients with 1 cm or less isolated lower pole stones were randomized to SWL or URS. The primary outcome measure was stone-free rate on noncontrast computerized tomography at 3 months. Secondary outcome parameters were length of stay, complication rates, need for secondary procedures and patient derived quality of life measures. Results: A total of 67 patients randomized to SWL (32) or URS (35) completed treatment. The 2 groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, side treated and stone surface area. Operative time was significantly shorter for SWL than URS (66 vs 90 minutes). At 3 months of followup 26 and 32 patients who underwent SWL and URS had radiographic followup that demonstrated a stone-free rate of 35% and 50%, respectively (p not significant). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1 SWL case (unable to target stone) and in 7 URS cases (failed access in 5 and perforation in 2), while postoperative complications occurred in 7 SWL and 7 URS cases. Patient derived quality of life measures favored SWL. Conclusions: This study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in stone-free rates between SWL and URS for the treatment of small lower pole renal calculi. However, SWL was associated with greater patient acceptance and shorter convalescence.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume179
Issue number5 SUPPL.
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ureteroscopy
Lithotripsy
Calculi
Kidney Calculi
Quality of Life
Radio Waves
Intraoperative Complications
Operative Time
Multicenter Studies
Length of Stay
Body Mass Index
Therapeutics
Tomography
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Keywords

  • kidney
  • kidney calculi
  • lithotripsy
  • ureteroscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Pearle, M. S., Lingeman, J. E., Leveillee, R., Kuo, R., Preminger, G. M., Nadler, R. B., ... Watkins, S. (2008). Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole Caliceal Calculi 1 cm or Less. Journal of Urology, 179(5 SUPPL.). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.140

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole Caliceal Calculi 1 cm or Less. / Pearle, Margaret S.; Lingeman, James E.; Leveillee, Raymond; Kuo, Ramsay; Preminger, Glenn M.; Nadler, Robert B.; Macaluso, Joseph; Monga, Manoj; Kumar, Udaya; Dushinski, John; Albala, David M.; Wolf, J. Stuart; Assimos, Dean; Fabrizio, Michael; Munch, Larry C.; Nakada, Stephen Y.; Auge, Brian; Honey, John; Ogan, Kenneth; Pattaras, John; McDougall, Elspeth M.; Averch, Timothy D.; Turk, Thomas; Pietrow, Paul; Watkins, Stephanie.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 179, No. 5 SUPPL., 01.05.2008.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pearle, MS, Lingeman, JE, Leveillee, R, Kuo, R, Preminger, GM, Nadler, RB, Macaluso, J, Monga, M, Kumar, U, Dushinski, J, Albala, DM, Wolf, JS, Assimos, D, Fabrizio, M, Munch, LC, Nakada, SY, Auge, B, Honey, J, Ogan, K, Pattaras, J, McDougall, EM, Averch, TD, Turk, T, Pietrow, P & Watkins, S 2008, 'Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole Caliceal Calculi 1 cm or Less', Journal of Urology, vol. 179, no. 5 SUPPL.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.140
Pearle, Margaret S. ; Lingeman, James E. ; Leveillee, Raymond ; Kuo, Ramsay ; Preminger, Glenn M. ; Nadler, Robert B. ; Macaluso, Joseph ; Monga, Manoj ; Kumar, Udaya ; Dushinski, John ; Albala, David M. ; Wolf, J. Stuart ; Assimos, Dean ; Fabrizio, Michael ; Munch, Larry C. ; Nakada, Stephen Y. ; Auge, Brian ; Honey, John ; Ogan, Kenneth ; Pattaras, John ; McDougall, Elspeth M. ; Averch, Timothy D. ; Turk, Thomas ; Pietrow, Paul ; Watkins, Stephanie. / Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole Caliceal Calculi 1 cm or Less. In: Journal of Urology. 2008 ; Vol. 179, No. 5 SUPPL.
@article{0dc51b7ebc224c01b75cfae5040c6c09,
title = "Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole Caliceal Calculi 1 cm or Less",
abstract = "Purpose: The optimal management of lower pole renal calculi is controversial. We compared shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of patients with small lower pole stones in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Materials and Methods: A total of 78 patients with 1 cm or less isolated lower pole stones were randomized to SWL or URS. The primary outcome measure was stone-free rate on noncontrast computerized tomography at 3 months. Secondary outcome parameters were length of stay, complication rates, need for secondary procedures and patient derived quality of life measures. Results: A total of 67 patients randomized to SWL (32) or URS (35) completed treatment. The 2 groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, side treated and stone surface area. Operative time was significantly shorter for SWL than URS (66 vs 90 minutes). At 3 months of followup 26 and 32 patients who underwent SWL and URS had radiographic followup that demonstrated a stone-free rate of 35{\%} and 50{\%}, respectively (p not significant). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1 SWL case (unable to target stone) and in 7 URS cases (failed access in 5 and perforation in 2), while postoperative complications occurred in 7 SWL and 7 URS cases. Patient derived quality of life measures favored SWL. Conclusions: This study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in stone-free rates between SWL and URS for the treatment of small lower pole renal calculi. However, SWL was associated with greater patient acceptance and shorter convalescence.",
keywords = "kidney, kidney calculi, lithotripsy, ureteroscopy",
author = "Pearle, {Margaret S.} and Lingeman, {James E.} and Raymond Leveillee and Ramsay Kuo and Preminger, {Glenn M.} and Nadler, {Robert B.} and Joseph Macaluso and Manoj Monga and Udaya Kumar and John Dushinski and Albala, {David M.} and Wolf, {J. Stuart} and Dean Assimos and Michael Fabrizio and Munch, {Larry C.} and Nakada, {Stephen Y.} and Brian Auge and John Honey and Kenneth Ogan and John Pattaras and McDougall, {Elspeth M.} and Averch, {Timothy D.} and Thomas Turk and Paul Pietrow and Stephanie Watkins",
year = "2008",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.140",
language = "English",
volume = "179",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5 SUPPL.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole Caliceal Calculi 1 cm or Less

AU - Pearle, Margaret S.

AU - Lingeman, James E.

AU - Leveillee, Raymond

AU - Kuo, Ramsay

AU - Preminger, Glenn M.

AU - Nadler, Robert B.

AU - Macaluso, Joseph

AU - Monga, Manoj

AU - Kumar, Udaya

AU - Dushinski, John

AU - Albala, David M.

AU - Wolf, J. Stuart

AU - Assimos, Dean

AU - Fabrizio, Michael

AU - Munch, Larry C.

AU - Nakada, Stephen Y.

AU - Auge, Brian

AU - Honey, John

AU - Ogan, Kenneth

AU - Pattaras, John

AU - McDougall, Elspeth M.

AU - Averch, Timothy D.

AU - Turk, Thomas

AU - Pietrow, Paul

AU - Watkins, Stephanie

PY - 2008/5/1

Y1 - 2008/5/1

N2 - Purpose: The optimal management of lower pole renal calculi is controversial. We compared shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of patients with small lower pole stones in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Materials and Methods: A total of 78 patients with 1 cm or less isolated lower pole stones were randomized to SWL or URS. The primary outcome measure was stone-free rate on noncontrast computerized tomography at 3 months. Secondary outcome parameters were length of stay, complication rates, need for secondary procedures and patient derived quality of life measures. Results: A total of 67 patients randomized to SWL (32) or URS (35) completed treatment. The 2 groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, side treated and stone surface area. Operative time was significantly shorter for SWL than URS (66 vs 90 minutes). At 3 months of followup 26 and 32 patients who underwent SWL and URS had radiographic followup that demonstrated a stone-free rate of 35% and 50%, respectively (p not significant). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1 SWL case (unable to target stone) and in 7 URS cases (failed access in 5 and perforation in 2), while postoperative complications occurred in 7 SWL and 7 URS cases. Patient derived quality of life measures favored SWL. Conclusions: This study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in stone-free rates between SWL and URS for the treatment of small lower pole renal calculi. However, SWL was associated with greater patient acceptance and shorter convalescence.

AB - Purpose: The optimal management of lower pole renal calculi is controversial. We compared shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of patients with small lower pole stones in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Materials and Methods: A total of 78 patients with 1 cm or less isolated lower pole stones were randomized to SWL or URS. The primary outcome measure was stone-free rate on noncontrast computerized tomography at 3 months. Secondary outcome parameters were length of stay, complication rates, need for secondary procedures and patient derived quality of life measures. Results: A total of 67 patients randomized to SWL (32) or URS (35) completed treatment. The 2 groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, side treated and stone surface area. Operative time was significantly shorter for SWL than URS (66 vs 90 minutes). At 3 months of followup 26 and 32 patients who underwent SWL and URS had radiographic followup that demonstrated a stone-free rate of 35% and 50%, respectively (p not significant). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1 SWL case (unable to target stone) and in 7 URS cases (failed access in 5 and perforation in 2), while postoperative complications occurred in 7 SWL and 7 URS cases. Patient derived quality of life measures favored SWL. Conclusions: This study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in stone-free rates between SWL and URS for the treatment of small lower pole renal calculi. However, SWL was associated with greater patient acceptance and shorter convalescence.

KW - kidney

KW - kidney calculi

KW - lithotripsy

KW - ureteroscopy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=41849110258&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=41849110258&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.140

DO - 10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.140

M3 - Article

VL - 179

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 5 SUPPL.

ER -