Comparison Between Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Treating Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) in terms of efficacy, complications, and overall efficiency in the management of proximal ureteral calculi. ESWL and URSL are the 2 most common modalities for treating ureteral stones. Previous studies and meta-analyses suggest that for stones <10 mm, ESWL is safer and of comparable efficacy compared with URSL. However, the choice between one modality over the other for the treatment of stones >10 mm is not as clear.MethodsThe literature was reviewed in the databases, and resulting reports were screened for relevance. This process yielded 10 articles, which were analyzed in terms of the initial stone-free rate (primary outcome measure) compared between the 2 treatment modalities. Pretreatment rate, operation time, auxiliary procedure rate, and complication rate constituted secondary measures in the analysis.ResultsA statistically higher initial stone-free rate was demonstrated for URSL compared with ESWL (odds ratio [OR] = 0.349; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.183-0.666; P = .001). ESWL showed a statistically higher retreatment rate compared with URSL (OR = 7.192; 95% CI = 4.934-10.482; P <.001). The 2 treatment modalities did not show statistically significant differences in mean operating time (OR = 10.35; 95% CI = −0.29 to 20.99; P = .056), auxiliary procedure rate (OR = 1.043; 95% CI = 0.415-2.616; P = .929), or in the complication rate (OR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.304-1.984; P = .598).ConclusionFor treating large (>10 mm) proximate ureteral stones, URSL tends to be more effective than ESWL, yet without adding significant risk.