Pneumatic vs laser lithotripsy for mid-ureteric stones: Clinical and cost effectiveness results of a prospective trial in a developing country

To compare the management of large ureteric stones (>10 mm) with ureterorenoscopy (URS) and laser or pneumatic lithotripsy, and their associated costs. Our prospective study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and included 101 patients with large mid-ureteric stones eligible for UR...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Arab Journal of Urology 2020-07, Vol.18 (3), p.181-186
Main Authors: Nour, Hani H., Kamel, Ahmed I., Elmansy, Hazem, Badawy, Mohamad H., Shabana, Waleed, Abdelwahab, Ayman, Elbaz, Ahmed, Eleithy, Tarek, Rushdy, Mamdouh
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
costs
laser
pneumatic
stone
Stones/Endourology
Ureter
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-1f35fc7698337f1ac84d4951ec45a935ed549a71dd0b7cc8863292132b4caf363
cites
container_end_page 186
container_issue 3
container_start_page 181
container_title Arab Journal of Urology
container_volume 18
creator Nour, Hani H.
Kamel, Ahmed I.
Elmansy, Hazem
Badawy, Mohamad H.
Shabana, Waleed
Abdelwahab, Ayman
Elbaz, Ahmed
Eleithy, Tarek
Rushdy, Mamdouh
description To compare the management of large ureteric stones (>10 mm) with ureterorenoscopy (URS) and laser or pneumatic lithotripsy, and their associated costs. Our prospective study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and included 101 patients with large mid-ureteric stones eligible for URS and lithotripsy, and was conducted between January 2018 and August 2019. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1 had laser lithotripsy, while the Group 2 had lithotripsy using a pneumatic energy source. Operative time was significantly longer in cases using pneumatic lithotripsy (P
doi_str_mv 10.1080/2090598X.2020.1749800
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmedcentral_infor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7473316</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7473316</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-1f35fc7698337f1ac84d4951ec45a935ed549a71dd0b7cc8863292132b4caf363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkd1KJDEQhcPissqsjyDkBXpMOunuZC8WZfAPBL1wwbuQyY8G0kmTpEfmJXzmTTMKelXFOVVfQR0AzjBaY8TQeYs46jh7XreordJAOUPoBzhZ9GYxjr70x-A0Z7dFlA4EIdb_AseEoJbTlp-A98dg5lEWp-AuQy-zSdC78hpLclPeQxsTHJ1u5mSKSXUqlxhM_gM33gWnpIcyaKhiLtBYa1RxO1P9DJPJsy8ZRgslnFLM08GEFVy3XKiyNjvj4-TCSyXMoaT9b_DTSp_N6UddgX_XV0-b2-b-4eZuc3nfKNqz0mBLOquGnjNCBoulYlRT3mGjaCc56YzuKJcD1hptB6UY60nLW0zaLVXSkp6swN8Dd5q3o9HK1OPSiym5Uaa9iNKJ705wr-Il7sRQn0jwArg4AFyoLxrlW0xeiyL3PiabZFAuC4KRWOISn3GJJS7xERf5D0BMjIk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pneumatic vs laser lithotripsy for mid-ureteric stones: Clinical and cost effectiveness results of a prospective trial in a developing country</title><source>Taylor &amp; Francis Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Nour, Hani H. ; Kamel, Ahmed I. ; Elmansy, Hazem ; Badawy, Mohamad H. ; Shabana, Waleed ; Abdelwahab, Ayman ; Elbaz, Ahmed ; Eleithy, Tarek ; Rushdy, Mamdouh</creator><creatorcontrib>Nour, Hani H. ; Kamel, Ahmed I. ; Elmansy, Hazem ; Badawy, Mohamad H. ; Shabana, Waleed ; Abdelwahab, Ayman ; Elbaz, Ahmed ; Eleithy, Tarek ; Rushdy, Mamdouh</creatorcontrib><description>To compare the management of large ureteric stones (&gt;10 mm) with ureterorenoscopy (URS) and laser or pneumatic lithotripsy, and their associated costs. Our prospective study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and included 101 patients with large mid-ureteric stones eligible for URS and lithotripsy, and was conducted between January 2018 and August 2019. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1 had laser lithotripsy, while the Group 2 had lithotripsy using a pneumatic energy source. Operative time was significantly longer in cases using pneumatic lithotripsy (P &lt; 0.001). The stone-free rate (SFR) on the first postoperative day was 94% and 92.5% for laser and pneumatic lithotripsy respectively, and there were no statistically significant differences in terms of early (day 1) or late (day 30) SFRs between the groups. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo Grading System, all complications were Grade &lt;III, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.742). The use of pneumatic lithotripsy had lower treatment costs. The number of auxiliary procedures required to reach a stone-free status was statistically equivalent in both groups. The type of lithotripsy did not affect the SFR or complications. However, laser lithotripsy was much more expensive than pneumatic lithotripsy. KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; SFR: stone-free rate; SWL: shockwave lithotripsy; URS: Ureterorenoscopy; US: ultrasonography</description><identifier>ISSN: 2090-598X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2090-598X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2090-5998</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2020.1749800</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33029429</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Taylor &amp; Francis</publisher><subject>costs ; laser ; pneumatic ; stone ; Stones/Endourology ; Ureter</subject><ispartof>Arab Journal of Urology, 2020-07, Vol.18 (3), p.181-186</ispartof><rights>2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &amp; Francis Group. 2020</rights><rights>2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &amp; Francis Group. 2020 The Author(s)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-1f35fc7698337f1ac84d4951ec45a935ed549a71dd0b7cc8863292132b4caf363</citedby><orcidid>0000-0002-2593-2723</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473316/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473316/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nour, Hani H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kamel, Ahmed I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elmansy, Hazem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Badawy, Mohamad H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shabana, Waleed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdelwahab, Ayman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elbaz, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eleithy, Tarek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rushdy, Mamdouh</creatorcontrib><title>Pneumatic vs laser lithotripsy for mid-ureteric stones: Clinical and cost effectiveness results of a prospective trial in a developing country</title><title>Arab Journal of Urology</title><description>To compare the management of large ureteric stones (&gt;10 mm) with ureterorenoscopy (URS) and laser or pneumatic lithotripsy, and their associated costs. Our prospective study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and included 101 patients with large mid-ureteric stones eligible for URS and lithotripsy, and was conducted between January 2018 and August 2019. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1 had laser lithotripsy, while the Group 2 had lithotripsy using a pneumatic energy source. Operative time was significantly longer in cases using pneumatic lithotripsy (P &lt; 0.001). The stone-free rate (SFR) on the first postoperative day was 94% and 92.5% for laser and pneumatic lithotripsy respectively, and there were no statistically significant differences in terms of early (day 1) or late (day 30) SFRs between the groups. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo Grading System, all complications were Grade &lt;III, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.742). The use of pneumatic lithotripsy had lower treatment costs. The number of auxiliary procedures required to reach a stone-free status was statistically equivalent in both groups. The type of lithotripsy did not affect the SFR or complications. However, laser lithotripsy was much more expensive than pneumatic lithotripsy. KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; SFR: stone-free rate; SWL: shockwave lithotripsy; URS: Ureterorenoscopy; US: ultrasonography</description><subject>costs</subject><subject>laser</subject><subject>pneumatic</subject><subject>stone</subject><subject>Stones/Endourology</subject><subject>Ureter</subject><issn>2090-598X</issn><issn>2090-598X</issn><issn>2090-5998</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>0YH</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkd1KJDEQhcPissqsjyDkBXpMOunuZC8WZfAPBL1wwbuQyY8G0kmTpEfmJXzmTTMKelXFOVVfQR0AzjBaY8TQeYs46jh7XreordJAOUPoBzhZ9GYxjr70x-A0Z7dFlA4EIdb_AseEoJbTlp-A98dg5lEWp-AuQy-zSdC78hpLclPeQxsTHJ1u5mSKSXUqlxhM_gM33gWnpIcyaKhiLtBYa1RxO1P9DJPJsy8ZRgslnFLM08GEFVy3XKiyNjvj4-TCSyXMoaT9b_DTSp_N6UddgX_XV0-b2-b-4eZuc3nfKNqz0mBLOquGnjNCBoulYlRT3mGjaCc56YzuKJcD1hptB6UY60nLW0zaLVXSkp6swN8Dd5q3o9HK1OPSiym5Uaa9iNKJ705wr-Il7sRQn0jwArg4AFyoLxrlW0xeiyL3PiabZFAuC4KRWOISn3GJJS7xERf5D0BMjIk</recordid><startdate>20200702</startdate><enddate>20200702</enddate><creator>Nour, Hani H.</creator><creator>Kamel, Ahmed I.</creator><creator>Elmansy, Hazem</creator><creator>Badawy, Mohamad H.</creator><creator>Shabana, Waleed</creator><creator>Abdelwahab, Ayman</creator><creator>Elbaz, Ahmed</creator><creator>Eleithy, Tarek</creator><creator>Rushdy, Mamdouh</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis</general><scope>0YH</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2593-2723</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200702</creationdate><title>Pneumatic vs laser lithotripsy for mid-ureteric stones: Clinical and cost effectiveness results of a prospective trial in a developing country</title><author>Nour, Hani H. ; Kamel, Ahmed I. ; Elmansy, Hazem ; Badawy, Mohamad H. ; Shabana, Waleed ; Abdelwahab, Ayman ; Elbaz, Ahmed ; Eleithy, Tarek ; Rushdy, Mamdouh</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-1f35fc7698337f1ac84d4951ec45a935ed549a71dd0b7cc8863292132b4caf363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>costs</topic><topic>laser</topic><topic>pneumatic</topic><topic>stone</topic><topic>Stones/Endourology</topic><topic>Ureter</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nour, Hani H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kamel, Ahmed I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elmansy, Hazem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Badawy, Mohamad H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shabana, Waleed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdelwahab, Ayman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elbaz, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eleithy, Tarek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rushdy, Mamdouh</creatorcontrib><collection>Taylor &amp; Francis Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Arab Journal of Urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nour, Hani H.</au><au>Kamel, Ahmed I.</au><au>Elmansy, Hazem</au><au>Badawy, Mohamad H.</au><au>Shabana, Waleed</au><au>Abdelwahab, Ayman</au><au>Elbaz, Ahmed</au><au>Eleithy, Tarek</au><au>Rushdy, Mamdouh</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pneumatic vs laser lithotripsy for mid-ureteric stones: Clinical and cost effectiveness results of a prospective trial in a developing country</atitle><jtitle>Arab Journal of Urology</jtitle><date>2020-07-02</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>181</spage><epage>186</epage><pages>181-186</pages><issn>2090-598X</issn><eissn>2090-598X</eissn><eissn>2090-5998</eissn><abstract>To compare the management of large ureteric stones (&gt;10 mm) with ureterorenoscopy (URS) and laser or pneumatic lithotripsy, and their associated costs. Our prospective study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and included 101 patients with large mid-ureteric stones eligible for URS and lithotripsy, and was conducted between January 2018 and August 2019. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1 had laser lithotripsy, while the Group 2 had lithotripsy using a pneumatic energy source. Operative time was significantly longer in cases using pneumatic lithotripsy (P &lt; 0.001). The stone-free rate (SFR) on the first postoperative day was 94% and 92.5% for laser and pneumatic lithotripsy respectively, and there were no statistically significant differences in terms of early (day 1) or late (day 30) SFRs between the groups. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo Grading System, all complications were Grade &lt;III, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.742). The use of pneumatic lithotripsy had lower treatment costs. The number of auxiliary procedures required to reach a stone-free status was statistically equivalent in both groups. The type of lithotripsy did not affect the SFR or complications. However, laser lithotripsy was much more expensive than pneumatic lithotripsy. KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; SFR: stone-free rate; SWL: shockwave lithotripsy; URS: Ureterorenoscopy; US: ultrasonography</abstract><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis</pub><pmid>33029429</pmid><doi>10.1080/2090598X.2020.1749800</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2593-2723</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2090-598X
ispartof Arab Journal of Urology, 2020-07, Vol.18 (3), p.181-186
issn 2090-598X
2090-598X
2090-5998
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7473316
source Taylor & Francis Open Access; PubMed Central
subjects costs
laser
pneumatic
stone
Stones/Endourology
Ureter
title Pneumatic vs laser lithotripsy for mid-ureteric stones: Clinical and cost effectiveness results of a prospective trial in a developing country
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T09%3A03%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmedcentral_infor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pneumatic%20vs%20laser%20lithotripsy%20for%20mid-ureteric%20stones:%20Clinical%20and%20cost%20effectiveness%20results%20of%20a%20prospective%20trial%20in%20a%20developing%20country&rft.jtitle=Arab%20Journal%20of%20Urology&rft.au=Nour,%20Hani%20H.&rft.date=2020-07-02&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=181&rft.epage=186&rft.pages=181-186&rft.issn=2090-598X&rft.eissn=2090-598X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/2090598X.2020.1749800&rft_dat=%3Cpubmedcentral_infor%3Epubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7473316%3C/pubmedcentral_infor%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-1f35fc7698337f1ac84d4951ec45a935ed549a71dd0b7cc8863292132b4caf363%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/33029429&rfr_iscdi=true