objective to compare the indirect and direct costs of two minimally invasive techniques (extracorporea lithotricia (LEOC) vs ureterorrenoscopy-holmium laser (URS/RIRS)) for the treatment of Rhine ureteral litiasis less than 2 cm. Material and methods Foresight and comparative study, non-randomised, of 84 patients treated with Rhine ureteral litiasis at least 2 cm between January and December 2016. Of these, 38 (45.67 %) were treated with LEOC (18 renal lithiasis and 20 ureteral lithiasis) and 46 (54.32 %) were treated with URS/RIRS (22 renal lithiasis and 24 ureteral lithiasis). A total of 19 (41.3 %) patients were active in the URS/RIRS group and 15 (39.5 %) patients in the LEOC group. The variables analysed were sex, age, number and size of the litiasis, days of absence from work due to treatment, estimation of the indirect cost of loss of labour productivity and the direct cost of treatment applied including follow-up (total number of procedures, auxiliary procedures, visits and diagnostic tests). The 2015 Wages Structure Survey (INE) was used to estimate the indirect cost. In addition, the ‘Work Productivity and Activity Impairment’ (WPAI) questionnaire was also used to determine the degree of perceived loss of productivity. Results The average number of sessions up to the lithiasis resolution was 2,57 for the LEOC group and 1,04 for URS. The average number of days of absence from work in the URS group was 7,16 days, while for the LEOC it was 3,18 (p = 0,034). The total indirect costs resulting from the loss of productivity were EUR 621,55 and EUR 276,05 for URS and LEOC respectively. The direct costs in the LEOC group were EUR 1 382,9 and EUR 2 317,71 in the URS group. The degree of work-related effects perceived by patients undergoing URS was 18.88 % and 21.33 % in the LEOC group. The level of allocation for carrying out daily activities was 24.44 % in URS and 15 % in LEOC. The LEOC conclusions are a technique that requires a higher average number of sessions for the resolution of Rhine ureteral lithiasis of less than 2 cm, but with less impact on total costs and perception of the degree of adverse effects.