DOI: 10.36347/sjams.2022.v10i12.014

Pages: 2131-2135

Background: Ureteric stone disease is a common urological problem throughout the world. Treatment of ureteral stones depends on stone size, composition and degree of obstruction, pain, presence of infection, single kidney and abnormal ureteral anatomy. The aim of the present study is to evaluate and compare in situ ESWL and URS with pneumatic lithotripsy in terms of Stone clearance, duration of procedural time, duration of hospital stay and complications (fever, haematuria, ureteral injury, stone migration, stone clearance, steinstrasse, UTI, ureteral perforation). Methods: A total of 80 patients were included in the study. 42 of them enrolled in ESWL group and 38 in pneumatic lithotripsy group. This is a Prospective Observational study. ICPL were done as day case surgery and ESWL were done as outpatient basis. Results: Intracorporeal pneumatic lithotripsy is better than in situ ESWL for the treatment of small non-impacted upper ureteric stone because it has more stone clearance rate and less complication like fever, haematuria, steinstrasse, UTI, ureteral injury and ureteral perforation. Conclusion: At the end of the study, it can be concluded that for the management of upper ureteric stones ICPL is a better option than in situ ESWL considering its greater stone clearance and less complications.