A systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave compared to ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of ureteral stones

Abstract

Objectives: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to identify whether extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) or ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) is the most appropriate method for treating ureteral stones. Methods: We identified relevant literature by searching the Google Scholar and PubMed databases in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We focused on the outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy. For each method, we compared complications, hematuria, perforation, failure, stone clearance, initial stone-free, operating time, stone size, auxiliary procedures, and overall stone-free outcomes. Our analysis involved meta-analysis, heterogeneity testing, subgroup analysis, meta-regression sensitivity analyses, Egger’s tests, Smoothed Variance Egger’s (SVE) testing, and Smoothed Variance Thomson (SVT) testing. In addition, we detected publication bias for all outcomes related to the two procedures. Results: Based on ten eligible studies, we conducted a meta-analysis on a total of 1509 patients. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy was used to treat 677 patients; the remaining 832 patients were treated by the ureteroscopic lithotripsy procedure. Considering the meta-analysis statistical parameters including odds ratio (OR), standardized mean difference (SMD), Q, I2 and their p-values, the overall stone-free, operating time, stone size outcomes were identified with significant OR, SMD, and Q values. The hematuria, failure, and stone clearance outcomes were determined to have significant Q values. The perforation and initial stone free outcomes had significant OR values. And, complications and auxiliary urinary procedures were not significant in terms of OR and Q values. Conclusions: Analysis indicated that ESWL and URSL procedures are essential for the treatment of ureteral stones, even though the perforation rate is higher for URSL than for ESWL. Overall stone-free rates were better for the URSL procedure.