Cost effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for medium-sized kidney stones. A randomised clinical trial. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy as first-line therapy for patients with single, distal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study.
To evaluate percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for their clinical effects, their cost effectiveness, their complication rates, and the patients' experiences, 55 consecutive patients were randomised to have one or other operation between October 1986 and October 1988. Six patients were excluded, 21 were treated with PNL and 28 with ESWL as primary treatment. Mean hospital stay and length of treatment were longer for PNL than for ESWL. Since 1 July 1987 all patients having ESWL have been treated without anaesthesia (n = 15), whereas epidural anaesthesia was used for all PNL. Slightly more of the ESWL patients experienced some pain during treatment. Minor complications or pain were more common after ESWL during the first 10 days after discharge from hospital. If patients with stone fragments of 4 mm or less were regarded as having a successful outcome, the success rates after one year were 94% for PNL and 77% for ESWL. The overall total cost was lower for ESWL than for PNL, the cost per successfully treated patient being 2172 pounds for PNL and 1810 pounds for ESWL. Medium sized kidney stones (6-30 mm, or 2-3 stones of 20 mm or less) can be efficiently and cheaply treated by both PNL and ESWL, though the cost of ESWL is lower. Even if effects other than cost (such as complications and patients' experience) are borne in mind, ESWL was superior to PNL for this group of patients. To compare extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) as first-line treatments for patients with distal ureteric stones.
                In all, 273 patients with single, monolateral, radiopaque, distal ureteric stones of 0.5-1.5 cm were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial. Patients were randomized to undergo ESWL (137) or URS (136). The electromagnetic Modulith SLX lithotripter (Storz Medical, Switzerland) was used for ESWL and a semi-rigid ureteroscope was used for URS. Patients in both groups were compared for overall stone-free rates (SFRs), re-treatment rates, need for auxiliary procedures and complication rates. A subgroup analysis was performed in both groups according to stone size of ≤1 cm and >1 cm.
                Patients in the ESWL group achieved a 92.70% overall SFR with a 44.88% re-treatment rate and an 11.02% auxiliary procedure rate. Complications occurred in 15.32% of patients treated with ESWL. Patients in the URS group achieved a 94.85% overall SFR with a re-treatment rate of 7.75% and an auxiliary procedure rate of 18.60%. Complications occurred in 19.11% of patients treated with URS. In the ESWL group, the need for re-treatments and for auxiliary procedures as well as the incidence of complications was significantly higher in patients with stones of >1 cm. In patients with stones of ≤1 cm treated with ESWL the need for re-treatments and for auxiliary procedures as well as the incidence of complications was significantly lower than for those treated with URS.
                In centres where both techniques are available, ESWL should be the preferred treatment for patients with single distal ureteric stones of ≤1 cm and URS should be reserved for patients with stones of >1 cm.
                © 2010 THE AUTHORS. JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2010 BJU INTERNATIONAL.
Results from three small studies, with low methodological quality, indicated ESWL is less effective for lower pole kidney stones than PCNL but not significantly different from RIRS. Hospital stay and duration of treatment was less with ESWL. More RCTs are required to investigate the effectiveness and complications of ESWL for kidney stones compared to PCNL or RIRS.