A Systematic Review on Comparative Analyses between Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Shock-Wave Lithotripsy for Ureter Stone According to Stone Size.

Background and

Objectives

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the treatment outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) according to the ureteral stone size. Materials and

Methods

In this systematic review, relevant articles that compared SWL and URSL for treatment of ureteral stones were identified. Articles were selected from four English databases including Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled Trials (Central), and Google Scholar. A quality assessment was carried out by our researchers independently using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A total of 1325 studies were identified, but after removing duplicates, there remained 733 studies. Of these studies, 439 were excluded, 294 were screened, and 18 met the study eligibility criteria.

Results

In randomized control trial (RCT) studies, URSL showed significantly higher SFR than SWL (p < 0.01, OR= 0.40, 95% CI 0.30-0.55, I² = 29%). The same results were shown in sub-group analysis according to the size of the stone (<1 cm: p < 0.01, OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25-0.63; >1 cm: p < 0.01, OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.74, I² = 55%; not specified: p < 0.01, OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.72, I² = 70%). In the non-RCT studies, the effectiveness of the URSL was significantly superior to that of SWL (p < 0.01, OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52, I² = 83%). Retreatment rate was significantly lower in URSL than in SWL regardless of stone size (p < 0.01, OR = 10.22, 95% CI 6.76-15.43, I² = 54%).

Conclusions

Meta-analysis results show that SFR was higher than SWL in URSL and that URSL was superior to SWL in retreatment rate. However, more randomized trials are required to identify definitive conclusions.