Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2025-5
Urolithiasis management: An umbrella review on the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus the ureteroscopic approach
This Umbrella Review aims to gather high-quality evidence on urolithiasis outcomes and complications, comparing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). We incorporated systematic reviews, some containing meta-analyses, into two separate reports, focusing on quantitative and qualitative results. Additionally, when data permitted, a secondary meta-analysis was conducted using final effect estimates from multiple meta-analyses. Stone-free rate (SFR) served as the primary outcome, with complications, retreatment, and hospital stay as secondary outcomes. Adhering to Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines, we initially screened 282 titles, narrowed down to 166 titles and abstracts, ultimately selecting 55 full-text articles for review. Of these, 22 met our inclusion criteria for the umbrella review. We evaluated study quality using JBI criteria, excluding five low-quality studies. Analysis showed ESWL had lower SFR compared to RIRS (RR: 0.577, 95% CI: 0.482–0.692) and URSL (RR: 0.570, 95% CI: 0.450–0.722); lower overall risk compared to ureteroscopy (RR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.51–0.66). ESWL had fewer complications than RIRS (p < 0.001), but lower SFR than ureteroscopy. However, the need for retreatment and auxiliary procedures in RIRS and URSL were lower than that in ESWL. In contrast, individuals undergoing ureteroscopy experienced a greater frequency of complications and longer duration of operation compared to those undergoing ESWL.
ScalesCDJrSmithACHanleyJM, et al. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol2012; 62: 160–165.
2.
PietrowPKPopeJCAdamsMC, et al. Clinical outcome of pediatric stone disease. J Urol2002; 167: 670–673.
3.
SmithJStapletonFB. Kidney stones in children: clinical features and diagnosis. In Post TW (ed) UpToDate. Waltham, MA. 2023.
4.
TürkCPetříkASaricaK, et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol2016; 69: 475–482.
5.
AboumarzoukOMKataSGKeeleyFX, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2012; 2012: CD006029.
6.
YangCLiSCuiY. Comparison of YAG laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of ureteral calculi: a meta-analysis. Urol Int2017; 98: 373–381.
7.
WeinAJKavoussiLRNovickAC, et al. Campbell-Walsh urology: expert consult premium edition: enhanced online features and print, 4-volume set. Elsevier Health Sciences, Elsevier Saunders, 2011.
8.
IchiyanagiONagaokaAIzumiT, et al. Erratum to: age-related delay in urinary stone clearance in elderly patients with solitary proximal ureteral calculi treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urolithiasis2016; 44: 193–194.
9.
AkinYGulmezHAtesM, et al. Impact of using thiocolchicoside during endoscopic ureteral calculi removal: a preliminary study. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol2016; 25: 29–34.
10.
ParkJKimHWHongS, et al. Comparison of treatment outcomes according to output voltage during shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized multicenter study. World J Urol2015; 33: 609–615.
11.
TelebMRagabADawodT, et al. Definitive ureteroscopy and intracorporeal lithotripsy in treatment of ureteral calculi during pregnancy. Arab J Urol2014; 12: 299–303.
12.
HyamsESMongaMPearleMS, et al. A prospective, multi-institutional study of flexible ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm. J Urol2015; 193: 165–169.
13.
AromatarisEFernandezRGodfreyCM, et al. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc2015; 13: 132–140.
14.
ChungDYKangDHChoKS, et al. Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS One2019; 14: e0211316.
15.
CuiXJiFYanH, et al. Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis. Urology2015; 85: 748–756.
16.
DengTChenYWLiuB, et al. Systematic review and cumulative analysis of the managements for proximal impacted ureteral stones. World J Urol2019; 37: 1687–1701.
17.
DonaldsonJFLardasMScrimgeourD, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol2015; 67: 612–616.
18.
DrakeTGrivasNDabestaniS, et al. What are the benefits and harms of ureteroscopy compared with shock-wave lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral stones? A systematic review. Eur Urol2017; 72: 772–786.
19.
JunboLYugenLGuoJ, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole renal stones 10–20 mm: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Urol J2019; 16: 97–106.
20.
JungHDHongYLeeJY, et al. A systematic review on comparative analyses between ureteroscopic lithotripsy and shock-wave lithotripsy for ureter stone according to stone size. Medicina (Kaunas)2021; 57: 1369.
21.
KallidonisPAdamouCNtasiotisP, et al. The best treatment approach for lower calyceal stones ⩽20 mm in maximal diameter: mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery or shock wave lithotripsy. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature conducted by the European Section of Uro-Technology and Young Academic Urologists. Minerva Urol Nephrol2021; 73: 711–723.
22.
KallidonisPNtasiotisPSomaniB, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing percutaneous nephrolithotomy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole renal stones less than 2 cm in maximum diameter. J Urol2020; 204: 427–433.
23.
KimCHChungDYRhaKH, et al. Effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicina (Kaunas)2020; 57: 26.
24.
LeeSWHChaiyakunaprukNChongHY, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of various treatment procedures for lower pole renal calculi: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BJU Int2015; 116: 252–264.
25.
MiYYRenKWPanHY, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) with holmium laser versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stone <2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis2016; 44: 353–365.
26.
TokasTHabicherMJunkerD, et al. Uncovering the real outcomes of active renal stone treatment by utilizing non-contrast computer tomography: a systematic review of the current literature. World J Urol2017; 35: 897–905.
27.
WangYBCuiYXSongJN, et al. Efficacies of various surgical regimens in the treatment of renal calculi patients: a network meta-analysis in 25 enrolled controlled clinical trials. Kidney Blood Press Res2018; 43: 1183–1198.
28.
XuYHLuYLiJ, et al. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of ureteroscopic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on ureteral calculi. Acta Cir Bras2014; 29: 346–352.
29.
ZhangWZhouTWuTY, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole renal stones: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Endourol2015; 29: 745–759.
30.
ZhengCYangHLuoJ, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment for renal stones 1–2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis2015; 43: 549–556.
31.
BarretoLJungJHAbdelrahimA, et al. Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2018; 6: CD010784.
32.
LamJSGreeneTDGuptaM. Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol2002; 167: 1972–1976.
33.
ParkerBDFrederickRWReillyTP, et al. Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. Urology2004; 64: 1102–1106; discussion 1106.
34.
ZiaeeSAHalimiaslPAminsharifiA, et al. Management of 10–15-mm proximal ureteral stones: ureteroscopy or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy?Urology2008; 71: 28–31.
35.
LildalSKNørregaardRAndreassenKH, et al. Ureteral access sheath influence on the ureteral wall evaluated by cyclooxygenase-2 and tumor necrosis factor-α in a porcine model. J Endourol2017; 31: 307–313.
36.
OstiAHHofmockelGFrohmüllerH. Ureteroscopic treatment of ureteral stones: only an auxiliary measure of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or a primary therapeutic option?Urol Int1997; 59: 177–181.
37.
KilincMFDoluogluOGKarakanT, et al. Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: is it safe and efficient or dangerous?Can Urol Assoc J2015; 9: E718–E722.
38.
YaoFJiangXXieB, et al. Comparison of ureteroscopy (URS) complementary treatment after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy failure with primary URS lithotripsy with holmium laser treatment for proximal ureteral stones larger than 10 mm. BMC Urol2021; 21: 126.
39.
PhilippouPPayneDDavenportK, et al. Does previous failed ESWL have a negative impact of on the outcome of ureterorenoscopy? A matched pair analysis. Urolithiasis2013; 41: 531–538.
40.
TorricelliFCMarchiniGSYamauchiFI, et al. Impact of renal anatomy on shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole kidney stones: results of a prospective multifactorial analysis controlled by computerized tomography. J Urol2015; 193: 2002–2007.
41.
TalsoMTefikTManticaG, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: current knowledge and future perspectives. Minerva Urol Nefrol2019; 71: 365–372.
42.
LiuYZhouZXiaA, et al. Clinical observation of different minimally invasive surgeries for the treatment of impacted upper ureteral calculi. Pak J Med Sci2013; 29: 1358–1362.
43.
CepedaMBudíaAPérez-FentesD, et al. [Strategies and recommendations for urolithiasis treatment and follow-up in COVID-19 pandemia]. Arch Esp Urol2020; 73: 438–446.
44.
AntonucciMRecuperoSMMarzioV, et al. The impact of COVID-19 outbreak on urolithiasis emergency department admissions, hospitalizations and clinical management in central Italy: a multicentric analysis. Actas Urol Esp2020; 44: 611–616.
45.
KilonzoMMDasguptaRThomasR, et al. Cost-utility analysis of shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults. BJU Int2023; 131: 253–261.
46.
SeklehnerSLaudanoMAJamzadehA, et al. Trends and inequalities in the surgical management of ureteric calculi in the USA. BJU Int2014; 113: 476–483.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
