The comparision of ESVVL and ureteroscopy in the treatment of distal ureteral stones.

Selection of primary mode of therapy for lower ureteral stones is stili controversial, should it be ESVVL (Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy) or ureteroscopic approach? ESVVL therapies were applied to 321 patients. Ultrasonographic targetings were used when stones could be localised by ultrasound in 131 patients (Group I), fluoroscopic targetings were used in 186 patients (Group II) during ESVVL treatment. Uretroscopic approach was selected in 121 patients as a primary treatment of lower ureteral stones. (Group III) Total success rates were 85% for ESVVL treatment and 94.4% for ureteroscopic approach. (P=0.015) Success rates were 91.1% and 80.6% in Group 1 and 2 subsequently. (P=0.015) Retreatment rate was clearly lower in group I (11.8%)than the group II (26.3%). (P=0.001) Success rate of ureteroscopic approach was compared to ESVVL groups, vvhile there was no d if ference with group I, (P=0.048) success rate of grup III was higher than group ll.(P=0.002) Complication rates showed significant difference between ESVVL and ureteroscopy groups.(13.2% versus 3.7%)(P=0.004) VVe concluded that ESVVL should be selected as a primary therapy of lower ureteral stones that can be seen by ultrasound due to its the higher success and lower complication rates than the ureteroscopic approach.