784 860
Author contributions:
Kemal Sarica had full access to all the data in the
study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the
accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design:
Drake, Grivas, Maclennan, Debastani,
Skolarikos, Tuerk, Knoll, Straub, Seitz, Petrik, Lam, Sarica.
Acquisition of data:
Yuan, Drake, Grivas.
Analysis and interpretation of data:
Maclennan, Drake, Grivas, Debastani,
Sarica.
Drafting of the manuscript:
Drake, Grivas, Maclennan, Debastani, Sarica.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content:
Drake,
Grivas, Maclennan, Debastani, Skolarikos, Tuerk, Sarica.
Statistical analysis:
None.
Obtaining funding:
None.
Administrative, technical, or material support:
None.
Supervision:
Debastani, Tuerk, Sarica.
Other:
None.
Financial disclosures:
Kemal Sarica certifies that all conflicts of interest,
including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations
relevantto the subjectmatter ormaterials discussed in themanuscript(eg,
employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock
ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed,
received, or pending), are the following: Knoll: company consultant
(Schoelly, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Storz Medical), company speaker
honorarium (Karl Storz, Richard Wolf, Olympus, Boston Scientific, Ibsen),
trial participation Cook, Coloplast; Straub: company consultant (Richard
Wolf Endoskope, Knittlingen, Germany), Sanochemia Pharmazeutika AG,
Vienna (Statistik Austria, #674), Porge`s Coloplast. Seitz: company
consultant (Astellas), company speaker honorarium (ROWA Wagner
GmbH & Co KG); Petrik: company speaker honorarium (Olympus, Cook),
fellowship, travel grants (Astellas Olympus); Lam: company consultant
(Pfizer, GSK, Astellas, Ipsen), company speaker honorarium (Pfizer, GSK,
Astellas, Ipsen).
Funding/Support and role of the sponsor:
None.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eururo.2016.04.035 .References
[1]
Morgentaler A, Bridge SS, Dretler SP. Management of the impacted ureteral calculus. J Urol 1990;143:263–6.[2]
Binbay M, Tepeler A, Singh A, et al. Evaluation of pneumatic versus holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted ureteral stones. Int Urol Nephrol 2011;43:989–95.[3]
Wolf Jr JS. Treatment selection and outcomes: ureteral calculi. Urol Clin North Am 2007;34:421–30.[4]
Tiselius HG. Removal of ureteral stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic procedures. What can we learn from the literature in terms of results and treatment efforts? Urol Res 2005;33:185–90.[5]
Stewart GD, Bariol SV, Moussa SA, Smith G, Tolley DA. Matched pair analysis of ureteroscopy vs. shock wave lithotripsy for the treat- ment of upper ureteric calculi. Int J Clin Pract 2007;61:784–8.[6]
Turna B, Akbay K, Ekren F, et al. Comparative study of extracorpo- real shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for proximal and distal ureteric stones. Int Urol Nephrol 2008;40:23–9.[7]
El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Youssef RF, El-Hefnawy AS, Sheir KZ. Impact of the degree of hydronephrosis on the efficacy of in situ extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2007;41:208–13.[8]
Ziaee SA, Halimiasl P, Aminsharifi A, Shafi H, Beigi FM, Basiri A. Management of 10-15-mm proximal ureteral stones: uretero- scopy or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Urology 2008;71: 28–31.
[9]
Karlsen SJ, Renkel J, Tahir AR, Angelsen A, Diep LM. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for 5- to 10-mm stones in the proximal ureter: prospective effectiveness patient-prefer- ence trial. J Endourol 2007;21:28–33.
[10]
Bagley DH. Expanding role of ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for treatment of proximal ureteral and intrarenal calculi. Curr Opin Urol 2002;12:277–80.
[11]
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 4.
[12]
Picozzi SC, Ricci C, Gaeta M, et al. Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients. Urol Res 2012;40:725–31.
[13]
Yencilek F, Sarica K, Erturhan S, Yagci F, Erbagci A. Treatment of ureteral calculi with semirigid ureteroscopy: where should we stop? Urol Int 2010;84:260–4.
[14]
Bagley DH, Kuo RL, Zeltser IS. An update on ureteroscopic instru- mentation for the treatment of urolithiasis. Curr Opin Urol 2004; 14:99–106.[15]
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535.[16]
Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. London, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
[17]
MacLennan S, Grivas N, Drake T, et al. What are the benefits and harms of ureteroscopy (URS) compared with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the treatment of upper ureteral stones in children and adults?. York, UK: University of York; 2015.
[18]
Reeves B, Deeks J, Higgins J, Wells G. On behalf of the Cochrane Non- Randomised Studies Methods Group. Chapter 13: Including non- randomised studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions v5022011. London, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
[19]
Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:401–6.
[20]
Manzoor S, Hashmi AH, Sohail MA, Mahar F, Bhatti S, Khuhro AQ. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. ureteroreno- scopic (URS) manipulation in proximal ureteric stone. J Coll Phy- sicians Surg Pak 2013;23:726–30.
[21]
Zhang J, Shi Q, Wang GZ, Wang F, Jiang N. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and shock wave litho- tripsy in the management of ureteral calculi in eastern China. Urol Int 2011;86:470–5.
[22]
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.
[23]
Cui Y, Cao W, Shen H, et al. Comparison of ESWL and ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy in management of ureteral stones. PLoS One 2014;9:e87634.[24]
Khalil M. Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: ex- tracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with hol- mium: YAG laser lithotripsy. Urol Ann 2013;5:88–92.
[25]
Bozkurt Y, Sancaktuta A, Bostanci Y, KapanM, Cayci H. Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic stone extraction in the treatment of ureteral stones. Eur J Gen Med 2010;7:29–34.
E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 7 7 2 – 7 8 6
784