ESWL Vs Flexible Uretroscopy in Management of Upper Ureteric Stones a Prospective Randomized Study

Assiut University

Status: Not yet enrolling

Conditions: Stone Ureter

Treatments: Procedure: Flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy; Procedure: shock wave lithotripsy

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT06722703

ESWL vs FURS UUS

Details and patient eligibility

About

This comparison between ESWL and flexible ureteroscopy aims to explore the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of these treatments for upper ureteric stones under 15 mm, focusing on stone-free rates, procedural risks, recovery times, and recurrence rates. A thorough understanding of these techniques is essential for optimizing patient outcomes and personalizing treatment strategies.

study aim to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and cost of SWL compared to flexible uretroscopy in management patients with upper ureteric stone less than 15 mm in size

Full description

The management of upper ureteric stones, particularly those less than 15 mm in size, has seen significant advancements with the development of minimally invasive techniques. Urolithiasis is a common condition, and selecting the most appropriate treatment is crucial for effective stone clearance and minimizing complications. Two widely used approaches in treating upper ureteric stones are Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS).

ESWL, a non-invasive procedure, uses focused shock waves to fragment the stone into smaller pieces that can be passed naturally through the urinary tract. Its non-invasiveness makes it an attractive option for many patients; however, its success is influenced by factors such as stone composition, location, and patient anatomy. In contrast, Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS) is a minimally invasive endoscopic technique where a flexible ureteroscope is passed through the urinary tract to directly visualize and fragment the stone using a laser (usually a Holmium: YAG laser). This method allows for a more targeted approach and is often used when ESWL is less effective or contraindicated.

ESWL and FURS have distinct advantages and limitations, and the choice between them depends on factors including stone size, density, location, and patient-specific considerations such as body habitus and anatomical variations.

Enrollment: 42 estimated patients

Sex: All

Ages: 18+ years old

Volunteers: No Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• patients age>18 years old. Stone site: upper ureteric stone. Stone side: unilateral stones Stone size: stones diameter up to 1cm Stone number: single or multiple Radio-opaque stone

Exclusion criteria

• patients with solitary kidney or only function kidney renal impairment present of distal obstruction pregnancy, current breast feeding. Bleeding tendency or anticoagulation. ipsilateral ureterolithiasis, Acute or chronic nephritis, or Renal tuberculosis aneurysm of the aorta or renal artery. inability to position the patient on the SWL table (eg, due to severe skeletal deformity or morbid obesity).

radiolucent stones that are not visible on ultrasound. severe metabolic disturbances (eg, cystinuria, primary hyperparathyroidism, or renal tubular acidosis)

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: Quadruple Blind

---

42 participants in 2 patient groups

ESWL group

Experimental group

Description:

The surgical technique of shock wave lithotripsy

Treatment:

Procedure: shock wave lithotripsy

FURS group

Experimental group

Description:

Flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy

Treatment:

Procedure: Flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy