ESWL vs URSL |
Khalil, et al. 2013 ( 1212. Khalil M. Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy. Urol Ann. 2013;5:88-92. ) |
n-RCT |
4 |
Kuwait |
3 months |
Complete removal |
ESWL |
31, 37 |
37.1±8.8 |
13.2±2.9 |
URSL |
37, 45 |
35.2±10.4 |
13.4±2.7 |
Lee, et al. 2006 ( 1313. Lee YH, Tsai JY, Jiaan BP, Wu T, Yu CC. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for management of large upper third ureteral stones. Urology. 2006;67:480-4; discussion 484. ) |
RCT |
2b |
China |
Final procedures |
≤ 3 mm |
ESWL |
19, 22 |
54.2±16.7 |
17.9±3.9 |
URSL |
16, 20 |
48.5±13.3 |
18.5±2.9 |
Salem, et al. 2009 ( 1414. Salem HK. A prospective randomized study comparing shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi. Urology. 2009;74:1216-21. ) |
RCT |
2b |
Egypt |
3 months |
Complete removal |
ESWL |
27, 42 |
36.4±4.5 |
12.5±2.3 |
URSL |
30, 48 |
36.7±7 |
12.2±2 |
Kumar, et al. 2013 ( 1515. Kumar A, Nanda B, Kumar N, Kumar R, Vasudeva P, Mohanty NK. A prospective randomized comparison between shockwave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones <2 cm: a single center experience. J Endourol. 2015;29:47-51. ) |
RCT |
2b |
India |
3 months |
≤ 3 mm |
ESWL |
20, 37 |
37.3±2.2 |
15.2±1.3 |
URSL |
21, 41 |
36.3±2.3 |
15.3±1.2 |
Manzoor, et al. 2013 ( 1616. Manzoor S, Hashmi AH, Sohail MA, Mahar F, Bhatti S, Khuhro AQ. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. ureterorenoscopic (URS) manipulation in proximal ureteric stone. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2013;23:726-30. ) |
RCT |
2b |
Pakistan |
Not stated |
Not stated |
ESWL |
NA |
44.3±10.1 |
10.8±4.3 |
URSL |
NA |
45.4±13.2 |
11.3±3.7 |
Tawfick, et al. 2010 ( 1717. Tawfick ER. Treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscope with lithoclast. Int Arch Med. 2010;3:3. ) |
n-RCT |
4 |
Egypt |
1 month |
Not stated |
ESWL |
54, 71 |
NA |
13.4±0.3 |
URSL |
61, 76 |
NA |
15.1±0.4 |
Wu, et al. 2004 ( 1818. Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, Lin CL, Chen CS. Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol. 2004;172(5 Pt 1):1899-902. ) |
n-RCT |
4 |
China |
1 month |
Not stated |
ESWL |
34, 41 |
NA |
12.8±0.4 |
URSL |
34, 39 |
NA |
15.1±0.5 |
Wu, et al. 2005 ( 1919. Wu CF, Chen CS, Lin WY, Shee JJ, Lin CL, Chen Y, et al. Therapeutic options for proximal ureter stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy. Urology. 2005;65:1075-9. ) |
n-RCT |
4 |
China |
4 weeks |
< 3 mm |
ESWL |
41, 51 |
51.5±1.9 |
12.1±0.3 |
URSL |
43, 56 |
53.8±1.5 |
17±0.7 |
Lam, et al. 2002 ( 2020. Lam JS, Greene TD, Gupta M. Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2002;167:1972-6. ) |
n-RCT |
4 |
USA |
3 months |
Complete removal |
ESWL |
14, 20 |
45.4±5 |
12.6±2.5 |
URSL |
12, 14 |
39.6±7 |
11.1±2.5 |
Rabani, et al. 2012 ( 2121. Rabani SM, Moosavizadeh A. Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Comparative Clinical Trial Between Transureteral Lithotripsy (TUL) and Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL). Nephrourol Mon. 2012;4:556-9. ) |
RCT |
2b |
Iran |
1 month |
< 5 mm |
ESWL |
NA |
NA |
17.7±3.3 |
URSL |
NA |
NA |
17.6±3.8 |
URSL vs PCNL |
Qi, et al. 2014 ( 2222. Qi S, Li Y, Liu X, Zhang C, Zhang H, Zhang Z, et al. Clinical efficacy, safety, and costs of percutaneous occlusive balloon catheter-assisted ureteroscopic lithotripsy for large impacted proximal ureteral calculi: a prospective, randomized study. J Endourol. 2014;28:1064-70. ) |
RCT |
2b |
China |
1 month |
< 4 mm |
URSL |
31, 52 |
42.5±10.3 |
19.8±4.3 |
PCNL |
30, 52 |
41.1±12.4 |
20.3±3.6 |
Sun 2008, et al. ( 2323. Sun X, Xia S, Lu J, Liu H, Han B, Li W. Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. J Endourol. 2008;22:913-7. ) |
RCT |
2b |
China |
1 month |
< 5 mm |
URSL |
31, 47 |
39.6±7.3 |
14.6±1.8 |
PCNL |
30, 44 |
40.4±8.4 |
14.7±2 |
URSL vs LU |
Fang, et al. 2012 ( 2424. Fang YQ, Qiu JG, Wang DJ, Zhan HL, Situ J. Comparative study on ureteroscopic lithotripsy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of unilateral upper ureteral stones. Acta Cir Bras. 2012;27:266-70. ) |
RCT |
2b |
China |
3-12 months |
Not stated |
URSL |
15, 25 |
36.9±11.8 |
15±4 |
LU |
14, 25 |
34.4±9.8 |
16±3 |
Kumar, et al. 2015 ( 2525. Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Jha SK, Singh H. A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy and Semirigid Ureteroscopy for Upper Ureteral Stones >2 cm: A Single-Center Experience. J Endourol. 2015;29:1248-52. ) |
RCT |
2b |
India |
3 months |
≤ 3 mm |
URSL |
26, 50 |
35.6±2.1 |
22±1 |
LU |
24, 50 |
36.7±2.4 |
23±2 |
|
Shao, et al. 2015 ( 2626. Shao Y, Wang DW, Lu GL, Shen ZJ. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm. World J Urol. 2015;33:1841-5. ) |
RCT |
2b |
China |
20 months |
Not stated |
URSL |
90, 139 |
41±12.3 |
13.6±1.4 |
LU |
92, 136 |
40±12.5 |
13.8±1.9 |
URSL vs LU |
Choi, et al. 2019 ( 2727. Choi JD, Seo SI, Kwon J, Kim BS. Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy vs Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Large Ureteral Stones. JSLS. 2019;23. ) |
n-RCT |
4 |
South Korea |
3 months |
< 2 mm |
URSL |
32, 52 |
57±1.5 |
2.2±0 |
LU |
26, 48 |
57.9±1.9 |
2.1±0 |
Falahatkar, et al. 2011 ( 2828. Falahatkar S, Khosropanah I, Allahkhah A, Jafari A. Open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, or transureteral lithotripsy--which method? Comparison of ureteral stone management outcomes. J Endourol. 2011;25:31-4. ) |
n-RCT |
4 |
Iran |
Not stated |
Not stated |
URSL |
12, 20 |
43±14 |
NA |
LU |
14, 20 |
41±10 |
NA |
Kadyan, et al. 2016 ( 2929. Kadyan B, Sabale V, Mane D, Satav V, Mulay A, Thakur N, et al. Large proximal ureteral stones: Ideal treatment modality? Urol Ann. 2016;8:189-92. ) |
RCT |
2b |
India |
3 weeks |
< 4 mm |
URSL |
38, 60 |
44.3±3.2 |
16.8±1.5 |
LU |
37, 62 |
42.1±2.7 |
17.2±1.9 |
Tugcu, et al. 2016 ( 3030. Tugcu V, Resorlu B, Sahin S, Atar A, Kocakaya R, Eksi M, et al. Flexible Ureteroscopy versus Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones >15 mm: A Single Surgeon Experience. Urol Int. 2016;96:77-82. ) |
n-RCT |
4 |
Turkey |
1 month |
< 4 mm |
URSL |
55, 80 |
40.7±10.2 |
18.5±3.4 |
LU |
73, 103 |
39.9±12 |
21.1±4.5 |
PCNL vs LU |
Karami, et al. 2013 ( 3131. Karami H, Mazloomfard MM, Lotfi B, Alizadeh A, Javanmard B. Ultrasonography-guided PNL in comparison with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the management of large proximal ureteral stone. Int Braz J Urol. 2013;39:22-8; discussion 29. ) |
RCT |
2b |
Iran |
6 months |
Complete removal |
PCNL |
28, 40 |
39.4±11.8 |
14.2±3.8 |
LU |
24, 40 |
35.2±9.8 |
13.5±4.5 |
Mousavi, et al. 2019 ( 3232. Mousavi Bahar SH, Amirhassani S, Nouralizadeh A, ZerafatJou N, Rasiuli J. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Laparoscopy in the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: The Experience of Two Different Settings. Urol J. 2019;16:448-52. ) |
n-RCT |
4 |
Iran |
Not stated |
Not stated |
PCNL |
39, 52 |
47.8±16.7 |
18.3±2.6 |
LU |
46, 55 |
42.9±16.1 |
21.3±2.2 |
ESWL vs URSL vs LU |
Lopes Neto, et al. 2012 ( 3333. Lopes Neto AC, Korkes F, Silva JL 2nd, Amarante RD, Mattos MH, Tobias-Machado M, et al. Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy. J Urol. 2012;187:164-8. ) |
RCT |
2b |
Brazil |
2 months |
≤ 3 mm |
ESWL |
7, 14 |
46±13.5 |
13.8±2.5 |
URSL |
10, 16 |
49.6±15.5 |
14.4±4.1 |
LU |
9, 15 |
46±13.6 |
15.9±4.1 |
Ozturk, et al. 2013 ( 3434. Ozturk MD, Sener NC, Goktug HN, Gucuk A, Nalbant I, Imamoglu MA. The comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stones. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013;7:E673-6. ) |
RCT |
2b |
Turkey |
3 months |
< 4 mm |
ESWL |
33, 52 |
40.7±14.5 |
13.2±2.1 |
URSL |
30, 48 |
41.1±8.5 |
13.2±2 |
LU |
21, 51 |
40±10.8 |
13.3±2.1 |
URSL vs PCNL vs LU |
Basiri, et al. 2008 ( 3535. Basiri A, Simforoosh N, Ziaee A, Shayaninasab H, Moghaddam SM, Zare S. Retrograde, antegrade, and laparoscopic approaches for the management of large, proximal ureteral stones: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol. 2008;22:2677-80. ) |
RCT |
2b |
Iran |
3 weeks |
Not Stated |
URSL |
33, 50 |
39±15 |
17.8±2.4 |
PCNL |
32, 50 |
48±13 |
20.3±3.3 |
LU |
36, 50 |
44±13 |
22.4±3.2 |
Wang, et al. 2017 ( 3636. Wang Y, Zhong B, Yang X, Wang G, Hou P, Meng J. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of URSL, RPLU, and MPCNL for treatment of large upper impacted ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Urol. 2017;17:50. ) |
RCT |
2b |
China |
1 month |
< 4 mm |
URSL |
28, 50 |
42±14 |
16.8±2.1 |
PCNL |
31, 50 |
41±15 |
19.3±1.8 |
LU |
29, 50 |
44±11 |
18.8±1.4 |