Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 580
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 190-197

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of renal and proximal ureteric stones: Are they competitive or complimentary?

Department of Urology, College of Medicine, University of Dammam, and King Fahd Hospital of the University, Al-Khobar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Hamed M.H. Eldarawany
Department of Urology, King Fahd Hospital of the University, P.O. Box 40076, Al-Khobar 31952
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

DOI: 10.4103/1658-631X.161993

Rights and Permissions

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) are now standard methods for the treatment of urinary stones. RIRS is newer compared to the others, and has noticeable promise owing to rapid advancements in endoscopic technology. In this article, a nonsystematic review of the literature was performed to select appropriate evidence-based studies that compare these different lines of stone management regarding the success rate, retreatment rate, auxiliary procedures, and operative complications. Meta-analysis of the collected data is performed using MedCalc for Windows, version 12.1.1. The meta-analysis of the selected papers shows that there is significant difference in stone free rate, retreatment rate, and auxiliary procedures between ESWL cases and the cases treated by other lines of stone management in favor of PCNL, RIRS, and URSL. However, there is no significant difference between the different lines of stone treatment with regard to the operative complication. One of the four methods, ESWL, PCNL, RIRS or URSL, can be the best management choice depending on stone size and location. Stones that do not respond to treatment by one method can be effectively treated by an alternative method. The four methods should be available in any well-equipped stone center, but this idea can change with future advances in technology.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded1973    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal