Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment for renal stones 1–2 cm: a meta-analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment for renal calculi 1–2 cm. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were researched and hand-searched for relevant congress abstracts and journals about RIRS and ESWL for the treatment for 1- to 2-cm renal stones. The retrieval time ended in September 2014. The related trials met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of all included studies, and meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.2. Seven literatures were retrieved, including 983 patients. The meta-analysis results showed that, compared to RIRS group, the patients in ESWL group had the following features:(1) the stone-free rate [relative risk (RR) 0.86; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.77–0.95, P = 0.005] was significantly different between two groups; (2) The retreatment rate of RIRS group was lower (RR 8.12; 95 % CI 4.77–13.83, P < 0.00); (3) The complications were not significantly different between two groups (Grade I RR 1.06; 95 % CI 0.67–1.69, P = 0.80; Grade II RR 0.75; 95 % CI 0.29–1.91, P = 0.54; Grade III RR 0.86; 95 % CI 0.26–2.86, P = 0.80). Compared to ESWL, our results showed that RIRS provided significantly higher stone-free rate and lower retreatment rate and without increase in the incidence of complications. However, further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ESWL:

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

PCNL:

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy

RIRS:

Retrograde intrare surgery

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

CCT:

Clinical controlled trial

References

  1. Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos D (2010) Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 12:e86–e96

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Trinchieri A, Coppi F, Montanari E, Del Nero A, Zanetti G, Pisani E (2000) Increase in the prevalence of symptomatic upper urinary tract stones during the last ten years. Eur Urol 3(7):23–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE et al (2005) AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 173:1991–2000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS (2012) Urologic diseases in America project: prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 62:160–165

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kumar A, Kumar N, Vasudeva P, Jha SK, Kumar R, Singh H (2015) A prospective randomized comparison between Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and miniperc for treatment of 1–2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi: A single centre experience. J Urol 193(1):160–164

  6. Singh BP, Prakash J, Sankhwar SN et al (2014) Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for intermediate size inferior pole calculi: a prospective assessment of objective and subjective outcomes. Urology 83(5):1016–1022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, das MK, Jha SK (2015) A prospective randomized comparison between shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower calyceal stones ≤ 2 cm: a single center experience. J Endourol 29(5)575–579

  8. Bas O, Bakirtas H, Sener NC et al (2014) Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones. Urolithiasis 42(2):115–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Resorlu B, Unsal A, Ziypak T et al (2013) Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones. World J Urol 31(6):1581–1586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HN, Nalbant I, Gucuk A, Imamoglu MA (2013) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi 10–20 mm. Urol Int 91(3):345–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ (2012) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20 mm. BJU Int 110(6):898–902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Amaro CR, Goldberg J, Damasio PC et al (2015) An update on metabolic assessment in patients with urinary lithiasis. World J Urol 33(1):125–129

  13. Tiselius HG, Ackermann D, Alken P et al (2001) Guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Urol 40:362–371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y et al (2011) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower pole renal stones with a diameter of 15–20 mm. J Endourol 25:1131–1135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chung BI, Aron M, Hegarty NJ, Desai MM (2008) Ureteroscopic versus percutaneous treatment for medium-size (1–2 cm) renal calculi. J Endourol 2:343–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferroud V, Lapouge O, Dousseau A et al (2011) Flexible ureteroscopy and mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal lithiasis less or equal to 2 cm. Prog Urol 21(2):79–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Estrade V, Bensalah K, Bringer JP et al (2013) Place of the flexible ureterorenoscopy first choice for the treatment of kidney stones. Survey results practice committee of the AFU lithiasis completed in 2011. Prog Urol 23:22–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Walther S et al (2010) Efficacy of retrograde ureteropyeloscopic holmium laser lithotripsy for intrarenal calculi >2 cm. Urol Res 38:397–402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hyams ES, Munver R, Bird VG, Uberoi J, Shah O (2010) Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2–3 cm: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol 24:1583–1588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ganesamoni R, Sabnis RB, Mishra S et al (2013) Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laser lithotripsy with pneumatic lithotripsy in miniperc for renal calculi. J Endourol 27(12):1444–1449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Sarpal R (2012) Miniperc: what is its current status? Curr Opin Urol 22(2):129–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shields JM, Bird VG, Graves R, Gómez-Marín O (2009) Impact of preoperative ureteral stenting on outcome of ureteroscopic treatment for urinary lithiasis. J Urol 182(6):2768–2774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A (2014) Guideline on Urolithiasis, uroweb. 2010 [M/OL]. Available at http://uroweb.org/fileadmin/guidelines/Guidelines-2014-5-June-2014.PDF

  25. Zhong W, Leto G, Wang L, Zeng G (2015) Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a study of risk factors. J Endourol 29(1):25–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Urology, The People’s Hospital of Bishan District, Bishan, Chongqing, 402760, China

      Changjian Zheng, Hongmei Yang, Jun Luo, Bo Xiong & Hongzhi Wang

    2. Department of Urology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China

      Qing Jiang

    Authors
    1. Changjian Zheng
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Hongmei Yang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Jun Luo
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Bo Xiong
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Hongzhi Wang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Qing Jiang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Changjian Zheng.

    Ethics declarations

    None.

    Additional information

    Changjian Zheng and Hongmei Yang contributed equally to this work.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Zheng, C., Yang, H., Luo, J. et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment for renal stones 1–2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 43, 549–556 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0799-8

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0799-8

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation