Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi: a prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes
- Title
- Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi: a prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes
- Author
- 이승욱
- Keywords
- Shock wave lithotripsy; Satisfaction; Ureteroscopy; Ureteric calculi
- Issue Date
- 2013-12
- Publisher
- Springer Science + Business Media
- Citation
- World Journal of Urology, Vol.31, No.6 [2013], p1569-1574
- Abstract
- To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with objective outcomes after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic surgery (URS) for ureteral calculi (UC).We prospectively evaluated 160 consecutive patients who underwent SWL (n = 65) or URS (n = 95) for a single radiopaque UC ranging from 4 to 15 mm. For patients who underwent URS, a 6-Fr double-J stent was routinely placed for 2 weeks after surgery. To examine PRO, we used a self-administered nonvalidated questionnaire evaluating overall satisfaction and PRO in four domains (pain, hematuria, voiding symptom, and time to return to routine activity) and willingness to undergo the treatment procedure again. Propensity-score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounding by discrepancy of pretreatment parameters between groups. Stone-free rates (SFRs) and complications were also compared.SFRs after the first, second, and third sessions of SWL were 61.5, 81.0, and 93.5 %, respectively. SFR after URS was 100 %, which was significantly better than SFRs for third-session SWL (p = 0.023). Complications were comparable. By propensity-score matching analysis, overall satisfaction was similar between groups, whereas PRO for voiding symptom and time to return to routine activity were significantly better in the SWL group (all p < 0.05). The two groups were not different in willingness to undergo the same procedure again.Despite significantly higher SFR after URS for UC, overall patient satisfaction was comparable after SWL and URS, meanwhile PRO of the SWL group was better than URS for voiding symptom and time to return to routine activity. In addition of objective treatment outcomes, PROs should be considered in counseling treatment methods for UC.
- URI
- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00345-012-0966-2http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11754/45264
- ISSN
- 0724-4983
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00345-012-0966-2
- Appears in Collections:
- COLLEGE OF MEDICINE[S](의과대학) > MEDICINE(의학과) > Articles
- Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
- Export
- RIS (EndNote)
- XLS (Excel)
- XML