Article citationsMore>>

Pricop, C., Maier, A., Negru, D., Malau, O., Orsolya, M., Radavoi, D. and Serban, D.R. (2014) Extracorporeal Shock Waves Lithotripsy versus Retrograde Ureteroscopy: Is Radiation Exposure a Criterion When We Choose Which Modern Treatment to Apply for Ureteric Stones? Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences, 14, 254-258.http://dx.doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2014.4.99

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Single Ureteric Stone. Initial Data from Iraq

  AUTHORS: Yarub Fadhil Hussein, Basim Jasim Abdulhussein, Abdulsalam Hatem Nawar, Muhamed T. Osman, Aqil Mohammad Daher

  KEYWORDS: Ureteric Stones, Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL), Iraq

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Urology, Vol.5 No.5, May 8, 2015

  ABSTRACT: Background: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) became the first line in the treatment of ureteric stone after failure of conservative treatment because of its safety, simplicity and effectiveness. It is not invasive procedure and can be done on outpatient basis without anesthesia and with few complications which is most probably temporary and treatable. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficiency and safety of ESWL in treatment of ureteric stone in Iraq. Materials and Methods: A total of 112 Iraqi patients with ureteric stones were participated in this prospective observational study in which patients scheduled for ESWL treatment for a period of 6 months. Patients were divided into 2 groups: 1) Group 1: 52 patients with proximal ureteric stone; 2) Group 2: including 60 patients with distal ureteric stone. Preoperatively all patient underwent bowel preparation and were asked to fast for 8 hours before the procedure. Results: The age ranged between 22 and 55 with mean of 42 (SD = 5) years. Around 46% had proximal ureteric stone and the rest were in distal ureter. Around 44% needed one session and 40% needed two sessions to be stone-free respectively. In regards to associated symptoms, 74% had ureteric colic, 3% haematuria, 43% microhematuria and 12% UTI. Mild hydronephrosis was found in 90% of the cases and 30 reported had previous intervention. Success rate was 90%. Conclusions: ESWL is safe and effective in treatment of ureteric stone with few complications and must be regarded first choice after conservative treatment in a patient with uncomplicated ureteric stone.