Home  |   Archive  |   Online Submission  |   News & Events  |   Subscribe  |   APFA  |   Society  |   Contact Us  |   中文版
Search   
 
Journal

-Ahead of print
-Authors' Accepted
    Manuscripts
new!
-Current Issue
-Archive
-Acknowledgments
-Special Issues
-Browse by Category

Manuscript Submission

-Online Submission
-Online Review
-Instruction for Authors
-Instruction for Reviewers
-English Corner new!

About AJA

-About AJA
-Editorial Board
-Contact Us
-News

Resources & Services

-Advertisement
-Subscription
-Email alert
-Proceedings
-Reprints

Download area

-Copyright licence
-EndNote style file
-Manuscript word template
-Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in English)

-Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in Chinese)

-Proof-reading for the
    authors

-AJA Club (in English)
-AJA Club (in Chinese)

 
Abstract

Volume 4, Issue 4 (December 2002) 4, 303–305;

Extracorporeal shock-wave versus pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy in treatment of lower ureteral calculi

G.Q. Zeng, W.D. Zhong, Y.B. Cai, Q.S. Dai, J.B. Hu, H.A. Wei

Department of Urology, First Municipal People's Hospital, Guangzhou 510180, China
    
    

Advance online publication 1 December 2002

Abstract

Aim: To compare the efficacy and complications of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) and pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi. Methods: From August 1997 to June 1999, 210 patients with calculi in the distal third of the ureter were treated with SWL and the other 180 with URS. The stones were fragmented with either HB-ESWL-V lithotripter or JML-93 pneumatic lithotripter through Wolf 7.5~9.0 Fr ureteroscope. The outcome was assessed in terms of stone clearance rate, re-treatment rate and complication incidence. Results: The stone clearance rate was 78.1 % with SWL and 93.3 % with URS (P<0.05). SWL had a re-treatment rate of 11.9 %, vs 2.2 % in the URS group (P<0.05). URS caused ureteral perforation in 3.3% of patients, while it was 0 with SWL (P<0.05). The differences in the incidence of other complications such as infection and stricture between the two groups were insignificant. Conclusion: Though the selection of these two options depends on equipments available and the expertise of the operator, we recommend URS as the optimal treatment for distal ureteral calculi.

Full Text |

 
Browse:  3143
 
Asian Journal of Andrology CN 31-1795/R ISSN 1008-682X  Copyright © 2023  Shanghai Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences.  All rights reserved.