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

OBJECTIVE

To compare the management of large ureteric stones (>10 mm) with ureterorenoscopy (URS) and laser or pneumatic lithotripsy, and their associated costs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

Operative time was significantly longer in cases using pneumatic lithotripsy ( < 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 <III, with no statistically significant difference between the groups ( = 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.

CONCLUSION

The type of lithotripsy did not affect the SFR or complications. However, laser lithotripsy was much more expensive than pneumatic lithotripsy.

ABBREVIATIONS

KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; SFR: stone-free rate; SWL: shockwave lithotripsy; URS: Ureterorenoscopy; US: ultrasonography.