ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of stone size on the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) monotherapy vs ureteroscopy (URS) for managing upper ureteric stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study design was a randomised prospective study of a total cohort of 180 patients with upper ureteric single stones of 0.5-1.5 cm. Half of the patients were managed by ESWL monotherapy, while the other half underwent URS with stone fragmentation using an ultrasound lithotripter (URSL). The success rate, re-treatment rate, auxiliary procedure (AP) rate, efficacy quotient, and complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: After single URSL and ESWL procedures 70/90 (77.8%) and 35/90 (38.9%) of the stones were successfully cleared, respectively (P < 0.001). The re-treatment rate after ESWL was significantly higher than in the URSL group (38.9% vs 11.1%, P < 0.001). Requiring an AP was not significantly different following ESWL (22.2%) and URSL (24.4%) treatment. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) at 3 months was significantly superior in the URSL group (88.9% vs 77.8%); however, both procedures had excellent results with no significant difference for stones of <1 cm (95.5% vs 92.9%, P > 0.05), compared to better results following URSL for stones of >1 cm (82.6% vs 64.6%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our present study supports that ESWL is recommended as a first-line non-invasive monotherapy for upper ureteric opaque stones of <1 cm, while URSL is recommended as a first-line treatment for stones of >1 cm. The results for URSL were superior with lower a re-treatment rate, rapid stone clearance in a very short time, and less radiation exposure. Therefore, stone size is an important factor for the final decision of the initial management of upper ureteric stones because it has a direct relation to the efficacy of ESWL, but it has no effect on the results of URSL.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of bipolar transurethral plasma vaporisation (B-TUVP) as an alternative to the 'gold standard' monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (M-TURP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a prospective randomised controlled study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 82 patients indicated for prostatectomy were assigned to two groups, group I (40 patients) underwent B-TUVP and group II (42 patients) underwent M-TURP. The safety of both techniques was evaluated by reporting perioperative changes in serum Na+, serum K+, haematocrit (packed cell volume), and any perioperative complications. For the efficacy assessment, patients were evaluated subjectively by comparing the improvement in International Prostate Symptom Score and objectively by measuring the maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR) before and after the procedures. RESULTS: In group II, there was a significant perioperative drop in serum Na+ (from 137.5 to 129.4 mmol/L) and haematocrit (from 42.9% to 38.2%) (both P < 0.001). Moreover, one patient in group II had TUR syndrome. The remote postoperative complication rate was (15%) in group I and comprised of stress urinary incontinence (5%), bladder outlet obstruction (5%), and residual adenoma (5%). In group II, the remote postoperative complication rate was (4.8%), as two patients developed urethral stricture. There were statistically significant improvements in micturition variables postoperatively in both arms, but the magnitude of improvement was statistically more significant in group II. CONCLUSION: B-TUPV seems to be safer than M-TURP; however, the lack of a tissue specimen and the relatively high retreatment rate are major disadvantages of the B-TUVP technique. Moreover, M-TURP appears to be more effective than B-TUPV and its safety can be improved by careful case selection and adequate haemostasis.
