Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Comparative Clinical Trial Between Transureteral Lithotripsy (TUL) and Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL)

BACKGROUND A review of the related medical journals indicates that there is no definite evidence-based option for managing large proximal ureteral stones, although many procedures such as transureteral lithotripsy (TUL), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and open ureterolithotomy are currently used to treat this urological problem. OBJECTIVES In this study, we tried to determine the most appropriate treatment plan for proximal ureteral stones larger than 12 mm by comparing the two most commonly used procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between February 2005 and April 2011, 62 patients including 40 males and 22 females (mean age 39.5 years, range 19 to 64) with proximal ureteral stones larger than 12 mm (12-26 mm) with a mean size of 17.64 mm were prospectively divided into two groups consisting of 32 patients who underwent TUL (group A) and 30 who underwent SWL (group B). In unsuccessful cases, repeat SWL or TUL was planned. Patients who could not tolerate the lithotomy position, younger than 18 years, had undergone coagulopathy, had concurrent renal and ureteral stones, were pregnant, or had sepsis were excluded from this study. RESULTS Stone access was successful in 28 patients and the treatment was efficient in 18 patients (56.25%) in group A. For the patients with successful stone access but unsuccessful TUL, a DJ was inserted and a second ureteroscopic intervention was performed. The second intervention was successful in 7 patients (21.87). SWL was successful in 14 patients (46.66%) in the first attempt and in 7 additional patients in the second intervention (23.33%). CONCLUSIONS In this study, we showed different success rates for SWL and TUL because of the larger size of the stones. We achieved a success rate of 56.25% in the first attempt in the TUL group, and the overall success rate (after the second TUL) was 78.12%. In comparison, the SWL group had a success rate of 46.66% in the first attempt, and the overall success rate (after the second SWL) was 69.96%.