Shock-wave lithotripsy or ureterorenoscopy for renal stones?

Pietro Manuel Ferraro, Francesco Pinto, Giovanni Gambaro

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Kidney stones are a common condition with high direct and indirect costs; to date, the optimal urological approach for some particular presentations including non-lower pole kidney stones between 10 and 20 mm of diameter is not clear. A limited number of randomized controlled trials and observational longitudinal studies suggests that ureterorenoscopy (URS) could be superior to shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) in achieving stone-free rates in this setting; however, such reports are generally weakened by a number of limitations including small sample size and scarce control for confounding. In this issue, Fankhauser et al. [1] report the results of a large observational retrospective study on the comparative efficacy and safety of URS and SWL for the treatment of previously untreated kidney stones.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)362-363
Number of pages2
JournalCLINICAL KIDNEY JOURNAL
Volume11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Keywords

  • endourology
  • lithotripsy
  • nephrolithiasis
  • observational studies
  • outcomes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Shock-wave lithotripsy or ureterorenoscopy for renal stones?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this