Factors that Affecting Success and Re-admission in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones with Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Tuncay Toprak,Musab Ali Kutluhan,Yavuz Onur Danacýoðlu,Yusuf Arýkan,Umut Arslan,Ramazan Topaktaþ

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14744/hnhj.2020.03064

2020-01-01

Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital Medical Journal

Abstract:Haydarpaþa Numune Medical Journal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Predicting Factors of the Success Rate of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Ureteral Stones: A Retrospective Evaluation with Large Patient Participiant

Ali Haydar YILMAZ,Şaban Oğuz DEMİRDÖĞEN,Hüseyin KOÇAKGÖL,Bakytbek KOZUBAEV,Salih AL

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54233/endourologybull-1345899

2023-11-19

Endouroloji Bulteni

Abstract:Objective: In our retrospectively planned study; treated with ESWL method; we aimed to investigate the factors that predict the success of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and its reliability in our patients with ureteral stones. Material and Methods: The study includes 489 patients treated for ureteral stones at Atatürk University Urology Clinic between 2008 and 2013. Patients underwent a maximum of three sessions of ESWL. Those who had fractures within two sessions were considered successful. Patients who underwent ESWL due to ureteral stones were retrospectively examined from hospital records. In predicting ESWL success, parameters such as gender, age, opacity, side and complication rates, and the need for additional procedures were evaluated. In patients who were stone-free after ESWL or had residual stones smaller than 4 mm on control imaging, ESWL was considered successful and stone-free was achieved. Sedoanalgesia was applied only to pediatric patients. Results: A total of 486 patients who underwent ESWL for ureteral stones were included in the study. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to age groups. Ages 1-18 were the first group, ages 20-40 were the second group, and people over 40 were the third group. Stone-free status was not statistically significant in terms of age groups and gender parameters. As a complication, stone street developed in 3 patients and hematuria developed in 2 patients. No significance was found between complications and the location of the stones (p=0.531). There was a significance between stone size and stone-free status and the development of complications (p=0.016, p=0.0001, respectively). Conclusion: It is essential to predict treatment success in ESWL and to protect patients from complications, time loss and morbidity that may arise from unnecessary treatment and procedures. In our study with large patient participation, we showed that ESWL is a method that can be safely preferred in ureteral stones with high success and low complication rates. In our study, stone size was found to be an important predictive value in predicting success.
Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous?

Muhammet Fatih Kilinc,Omer Gokhan Doluoglu,Tolga Karakan,Ayhan Dalkilic,Nurettin Cem Sonmez,Yasin Aydogmus,Berkan Resorlu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2745

2015-10-13

Canadian Urological Association Journal

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: We assessed the effectiveness of ureteroscopy (URS) in proximal ureteral stones performed after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) failure, and determined outcomes in terms of success rate, complications, and operation time.METHODS: We analyzed data of patients with previous unsuccessful SWL (Group I) and the ones that did not have SWL or URS before (Group II) for proximal ureteral stones between December 2007 and August 2014. Group I included 346 patients who underwent complementary URS and Group II 209 patients who underwent primary URS. Success rates, operation time and complications were compared between groups.RESULTS: Success rates of complementary and primary URS were 78.9% and 80.9%, respectively. The difference in success rates was not statistically significant between groups (p = 0.57). The complication rates of complementary URS was 12.1%, and 9.5% in primary URS (p = 0.49). No statistically significant differences were noted in terms of gender, age, stone size and side, or lithotripter type between groups. The mean operation time and need for balloon dilatation were higher in complementary URS group compared to the primary URS group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: Complementary URS may be used safely after SWL failure in proximal ureteral stones. Its success rate and morbidities are similar to primary URS, except for longer operation time and an increased need for balloon dilatation.
Factors affecting the success of pediatric extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy therapy: 26-year experience at a single institution

Fuat Kızılay,Turan Özdemir,Burak Turna,Nursen Karaca,Adnan Şimşir,Işık Alper,Oktay Nazlı

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24953/turkjped.2020.01.010

Abstract:Despite its widespread use, few studies have evaluated the success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in pediatric patients with several parameters and a large group of patients. In the present study, we aimed to analyze the factors that affect the outcomes of pediatric ESWL treatment, which we have practiced for 26 years. This study included 1012 pediatric patients who underwent ESWL between March 1991 and November 2017. Pre-procedure radiological evaluations were performed using kidney-ureter-bladder and/ or urinary system ultrasonography. Demographic data, stone characteristics, and ESWL treatment data and complications were recorded and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for the stone-free rate (SFR). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the cut-off values for stone size to predict ESWL success for both kidney and ureteral stones. Age, body mass index (BMI), congenital renal anomaly, stone location, stone size, number of stones, and stone composition significantly affected the SFRs in univariate analysis; however, only age, BMI, stone location, and stone size were significant in the multivariate analysis. If no residual fragments were detected after three sessions of ESWL application, the procedure was considered successful. The cut-off stone size values for the kidney and ureter that predicted treatment success were 96.28 mm2 and 44.16 mm < sup > 2 < /sup > , respectively. ESWL is an effective and safe treatment in the pediatric age group that provides high SFRs. Age, BMI, and stone location, size, and composition are particularly critical factors that can predict the success of ESWL.
Evaluating the role of urine chemistry in shock wave lithotripsy outcomes

Erdoğan, Erhan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01639-3

2024-10-10

Urolithiasis

Abstract:Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is a commonly used method for the noninvasive treatment of kidney stones. However, achieving optimal treatment outcomes and minimizing potential damage to the kidney necessitates careful consideration for the total amount of energy utilized. This study aims to investigate whether urine pH and urine specific gravity have an impact on the total amount of energy applied during SWL.

urology & nephrology
Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones: a Comparison Study among Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Retrograde Ureterolithotripsy and Percutaneous Ureterolithotripsy

SUN Xiao-wen,XIA Shu-jie,LU Jun,FAN Jie,WEN Wei,ZHANG Jie,LIU Hai-tao,LI Wei-guo,ZHU Yi-yong,LI Zhong-zhong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-6702.2008.08.014

2008-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), retrograde ureterolithotripsy(URSL) and percutaneous ureterolithotripsy(PCL) in the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi. Methods A total of 397 patients with proximal ureteral calculi treated by ESWL,URSL or PCL ftom September 2001 to December 2005 were retrospectively analyzed. Results Among 397 patients,83 patients with a mean stone size of 1.23 cm were treated by ESW L.Of then.13 patients transferred to URSL or ureterolithotomy and the stone-free rate of ESWL 1 month later was 65.7%(46/70).TWO hundred and thirteen patients with a mean stone size of 1.21 cm were treated by URSL and 101 patients with a mean stone size of 1.50 cm were treated by PCL.The stone-free rate of URSL and PCL 1 month after the treatment was 88.2%(172/195)and 96.9%(95/98),respectively.Eighteen patients in URSL group and 3 patients in PCL group trans-ferred to ureterolithotomy.ESWL had a statistically lower stone-free rate than that of URSL and PCL (P＜0.001),both in patients with stone size≤1 cm and＞1 cm.For patients with stone size＞1 cm,PCL achieved a higher stone-free rate than URSL(P=0.005).PCL also had a higher stone-free rate than URSL in treating patients with stone size≤1 cm but there was no statistical difference between them. Conclusions ESWL can still be used as first-line treatment choice for proximal ureteral stones less than 1cm.For patients with proximal ureteral stones larger than 1cm.URSL and PCL are more proper treatment modalities since they can achieve higher stone-free rate and have acceptable low complications.
Comparison of Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy with Ureteroscopic Lasertripsy for Management of Proximal Ureteral Stones

Ghulam Mustafa,Naveed Ahmed Mahar,Harris Hassan Qureshi,Mohsan Mustafa,Muhammad Fayaz,Asad Shahzad Hassan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2024.01.101

2024-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with ureterorenoscopy and lasertripsy for managing upper ureteral stones of size 10mm to 15mm.STUDY DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of Urology, Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT), from December 2020 to December 2021.METHODOLOGY: A total of 168 patients with the diagnosis of proximal ureteric stone of size 1-1.5 cm were enrolled for this study. Patients were divided into two groups by simple random method. Group 1 patients underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) and lasertripsy while Group 2 patients were subjected to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). Patients' demography, operative time, duration of hospitalisation, complication rate and stone-free rates, were recorded for both groups. Frequency and percentages were calculated for categorical variables and mean and standard deviation were calculated for continuous variables. For comparison of continuous variables, one-way ANOVA was applied, and Chi-square test was applied to compare the categorical variables. The p-value ≤0.05 was taken as significant.RESULTS: The mean age was of 39.55 ± 14.06 years, with the majority falling within the age group of 26 to 40 years. There were more males (116, 69%) than females (52, 31%). Most of the patients did not have a history of diabetes or hypertension. Sixty-two patients had previous history of stones. The average duration of ureteric stone disease was 3.18 ± 3.14 months. The mean size of the ureteric stone was 10.82 ± 3.19mm. The procedure duration was significantly shorter for URS, as compared to ESWL (33.81 ± 15.42 minutes vs. 45.00 ± 0.00 minutes, p=<0.01. The overall stone clearance rate was significantly higher after URS (83.3%) as compared to ESWL (64.2%, p=0.05).CONCLUSION: URS was a superior treatment option as compared to ESWL. However, the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be based on a tailored approach considering the patient's preference and the size of the stones.KEY WORDS: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS), Modified clavien classification system (MCCS), Ureteric stone.

medicine, general & internal
Role of Stone Heterogeneity Index in Determining Success of Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urinary Calculi

Nadeem Iqbal,Aisha Hasan,Ahsan Nazar,Sajid Iqbal,Mohammad Haroon Hassan,Behzad Saeed Gill,Rabiyya Khan,Saeed Akhter,Rodrigo Suarez-Ibarrola

2021-03-24

Abstract:Introduction: Various stone factors can affect the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). A novel factor called the stone heterogeneity index (SHI) may have an impact on stone free rates. The objective of this study was to assess the role of SHI in SWL outcomes. Methods: Patients' medical records were reviewed for the collection of data variables. They were subjected to SWL, using an electromagnetic lithotripter machine (Storz Modulith SLX-MX). Computation of mean stone density (mean value of the Hounsfield units) and SHI was accomplished by generating elliptical regions of interest on the computed tomography (CT) scan images. Grouping was performed on the basis of stone free and failure outcomes. Relevant statistical tests were applied for continuous and categorical variables. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Overall, 385 subjects were included having a mean age of 38.4 ± 14.7 years. The cohort comprised 276 (71.7%) males and 109 (28.3%) female patients. A total of 234 (60.8%) patients were rendered successful (stone free after one session) while 151 (39.2%) of the patients were declared to have failed the SWL procedure. Stone length, stone density, and SHI values were 13.7 ± 7.6 mm, 935 ± 404, and 201 ± 107, respectively. The stone density, SHI, and stone length were significantly different between the two groups (p-values of 0.001, 0.02, and 0.04, respectively). Conclusions: SHI can be a helpful CT scan-based parameter to assess stone fragility. It can help clinicians in the judicious selection of patients before implementing SWL procedure. Relevance for patients: Non-contrast CT-based stone parameters have been found to be effective for predictions of outcomes. SHI can be a helping tool to better predict SWL success rates when treating the renal stones.
Impact of the degree of hydronephrosis on the efficacy of in situ extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi

Ahmed El-Assmy,Ahmed R El-Nahas,Ramy F Youssef,Ahmed S El-Hefnawy,Khaled Z Sheir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00365590601068892

Abstract:Objective: We conducted a prospective randomized study to investigate the relation between the degree of stone-induced hydronephrosis and the outcome of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in patients with lumbar ureter stones. Material and methods: A total of 284 patients with solitary lumbar ureter stones with or without hydronephrosis were treated with ESWL. The degree of hydronephrosis was determined by means of renal ultrasound. Patients were divided into four groups according to the degree of stone-induced hydronephrosis. The results were analyzed by comparing stone-free rates, the number of shock waves, the number of sessions, the incidence of complications, secondary interventions and time to stone clearance. Results: The mean stone size was 11.4+/-2.6 mm. In the hydronephrotic group, the stone-free rate was 80.3%, compared to 89.1% in patients without hydronephrosis (p=0.12). The mean time to stone clearance was 13.8+/-9.8 days. Differences among the four groups in terms of stone size and treatment outcome were not significant. However, the presence of hydronephrosis was highly associated with repeat treatment (2.4 vs 1.7 treatments; p<0.001) and prolonged clearance time (16.2 vs 11.6 days; p<0.001). Conclusions: In cases with solitary lumbar ureter stones, the degree of hydronephrosis caused by the stone does not affect the overall treatment success with ESWL. However, stones in obstructed systems are associated with a tendency for repeat treatment and a prolonged time for stone clearance.
Prospective Evaluation of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy in Renal and Upper Ureteric Stone Treatment: Clinical Assessment and Results

Nimisha Singh,Shikhar Agarwal,Rajeev Sarpal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.61102

2024-05-26

Cureus

Abstract:Introduction: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a widely accepted non-invasive treatment for renal and upper ureteric stones smaller than 2 cm due to its safety and efficacy. Despite advancements in minimally invasive techniques, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy remains an important modality. Aims and objective: This prospective observational study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ESWL in managing renal and upper ureteric stones measuring less than 2 cm in terms of stone clearance. Material and methods: In a study conducted at a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital, 119 patients with renal and upper ureteric stones underwent extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy over a 12-month period. Data on patient demographics, stone characteristics, treatment procedures, and complications were collected. Follow-up assessments were performed at two-week intervals for up to two months post-treatment. Results: The mean age of patients was 39.78 years, with a mean stone size of 1.2 cm. Right kidney stones were more prevalent (61.3% [n=76]). Complications included fever (19.3% [n=23]), gross haematuria (24.3% [n=29]), and steinstrasse (21.8% [n=26]). The success rate of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy was 81.5% (n=97), with 18.5% (n=22) of patients requiring surgical intervention due to incomplete fragmentation or residual fragments >4 mm. Stone size and density played significant roles in treatment success. Conclusion: Despite advancements in minimally invasive techniques, ESWL retains its significance as a noninvasive and effective treatment option for renal and upper ureteric stones smaller than 2 cm. Its success depends on various factors, including the stone site, size, and composition. ESWL offers advantages such as minimal morbidity, shorter hospital stays, and better patient compliance. Complications such as steinstrasse are manageable with conservative measures or ancillary procedures. While ESWL may be losing ground in some cases, its noninvasive nature and favourable outcomes make it a valuable option in the armamentarium for stone management.
CLINICAL STUDY OF SHOCK WAVE LITHORTRIPSY AFTER FAILURE OF ENDOSCOPIC LITHORTRIPSY

JIA Jian-ye,JIANG Ning,WANG Guo-zeng,YE Min,SHI Quan,XU Meng-qing,YANG Fang,ZHU Ying-jian,WANG Wei-ming

2008-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of shock wave lithortripsy (SWL) for treating patients with calculus after failure of endoscopic lithortripsy. Methods From Feb. 2006 to Mar. 2007, 60 patients presented to our department with the upper urinary tract stones. Thirty-seven patients were renal stones and twenty-three were ureteral stones. All patients with average stone burden of 1.5 cm were treated using a Dornier Compact S lithotripter. The total number of shock waves varied from 1 600 to 3 000 and the energy levels ranged from 1 to 6 units. Results For 37 renal stones, the fragmentation was 75.67% (28 cases) after one SWL session, 10.81% (4 cases) after 2 SWL sessions, 5.40% (2 cases) after 3 SWL sessions, and 2.70% (1 case) after 4 SWL sessions. Two patients (5.40%) failed and changed to open surgery. For 23 ureter calculus, the fragmentation was 82.60% (19 cases) after one SWL session and 17.40% (4 cases) after 2 SWL sessions. Conclusion SWL is an effective and reliable treatment for patients with calculus after failure of endoscopic lithortripsy. However, it is very important for doctor to choose appropriate therapy. SWL is a remedy.
Greater and Lesser Ischiadic Foramina As Path of Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Distal Ureteral Stone in Children

Xizhao Sun,Lei He,Jianlin Lu,Xiaoming Cong,Luming Shen,Ying Wang,Huaijun Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.060

2010-01-01

Abstract:No AccessJournal of UrologyPediatric Urology1 Aug 2010Greater and Lesser Ischiadic Foramina as Path of Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Distal Ureteral Stone in Children Xizhao Sun, Lei He, Jianlin Lu, Xiaoming Cong, Luming Shen, Ying Wang, and Huaijun Zhu Xizhao SunXizhao Sun More articles by this author , Lei HeLei He More articles by this author , Jianlin LuJianlin Lu More articles by this author , Xiaoming CongXiaoming Cong More articles by this author , Luming ShenLuming Shen More articles by this author , Ying WangYing Wang More articles by this author , and Huaijun ZhuHuaijun Zhu More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.060AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of shock wave lithotripsy in the supine position through the greater and lesser ischiadic foramina as a path of shock wave to treat distal ureteral stones in young children. Materials and Methods: We treated 22 young children with distal urinary calculi using the Dornier Compact S® lithotriptor between 1997 and 2007. The study population consisted of 15 boys and 7 girls 6 months to 7 years old (mean ± SD 5.4 ± 2.1 years). Stone size ranged from 5 to 16 mm (mean 6.8). All patients were treated in the supine position under dissociative anesthesia with ketamine. The focused shock wave targeted the stone in the distal ureter through the greater and lesser ischiadic foramina. Results: Number of shocks ranged from 600 to 3,000 (mean ± SD 2,346.2 ± 483.7). Energy per pulse ranged from level 4 to 5 (mean 4.5). Treatment time varied from 20 to 40 minutes (mean 31). Stone-free rate at 2 weeks after lithotripsy was 77.3%, which increased to 100% at 3 months after a single lithotripsy session. No serious side effects were observed. Conclusions: Shock wave lithotripsy in the supine position through the greater and lesser ischiadic foramina as the path of shock wave treats distal ureteral stones in young children with an excellent success rate and few side effects. References 1 : Long-term followup in 1,003 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. J Urol1988; 140: 479. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Treatment update on pediatric urolithiasis. World J Urol1997; 15: 195. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 3 : Pediatric kidney: functional outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol1996; 155: 2044. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Pediatric urolithiasis. Curr Opin Urol2009; 19: 419. Google Scholar 5 : Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy experience in children. J Urol1986; 136: 238. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Long-term follow-up after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children. Eur Urol1991; 19: 225. Google Scholar 7 : Piezoelectric extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children. J Urol1989; 142: 349. Link, Google Scholar 8 : The effect of newer generation lithotripsy upon renal function assessed by nuclear scintigraphy. J Urol1995; 154: 947. Link, Google Scholar 9 : Effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on renal function and body height in pediatric patients. J Urol1992; 148: 1064. Link, Google Scholar 10 : Long-term results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children. J Urol1989; 142: 609. Link, Google Scholar 11 : The management of paediatric urolithiasis. BJU Int2000; 86: 857. Google Scholar 12 : Variation in clinical outcome following shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol2000; 163: 721. Link, Google Scholar 13 : Monotherapy extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of staghorn calculi in children. J Urol2001; 165: 2324. Link, Google Scholar 14 : EAU/AUA Nephrolithiasis Guideline Panel: 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol2007; 178: 2418. Link, Google Scholar 15 : Piezoelectric, electrohydraulic and electromagnetic shockwave lithotripsy for lower ureteral stone. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi1999; 39: 235. Google Scholar 16 : Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteric stones in children. Int Urol Nephrol2006; 38: 225. Google Scholar 17 : Chinese Guidelines on Urological Diseases. In: . Beijing: People's Health Publishing House2007: 244. Google Scholar 18 : The operation and application of SWL technique. In: Medical Shockwave. Beijing: Chinese Science and Technique Press2006: 353. Google Scholar 19 : Percutaneous lithotripsy in morbid obesity. J Urol1988; 139: 243. Link, Google Scholar 20 : The prone positioning during general anesthesia minimally affects respiratory mechanics while improving functional residual capacity and increasing oxygen tension. Anesth Analg1995; 80: 955. Google Scholar 21 : Pulmonary physiologic changes of morbid obesity. Am J Med Sci1999; 318: 293. Google Scholar 22 : Pediatric urolithiasis. Urol Clin North Am1997; 12: 173. Google Scholar 23 : Management of ureteric stones. Eur Urol1994; 25: 265. Google Scholar 24 : Strategies for managing upper tract calculi in young children. J Urol1999; 162: 1234. Link, Google Scholar 25 : Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is highly effective for ureteral calculi in children. J Urol2001; 165: 2316. Link, Google Scholar Departments of Urology and Pharmacy, Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 184Issue 2August 2010Page: 665-668 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordslithotripsyureteral calculichildMetricsAuthor Information Xizhao Sun More articles by this author Lei He More articles by this author Jianlin Lu More articles by this author Xiaoming Cong More articles by this author Luming Shen More articles by this author Ying Wang More articles by this author Huaijun Zhu More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
[Current status of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in urinary lithiasis]

Jose Gregorio Pereira-Arias,Mikel Gamarra-Quintanilla,Luis Felipe Urdaneta-Salegui,Jorge Alberto Mora-Christian,Andrea Sánchez-Vazquez,Ander Astobieta-Odriozola,Gaspar Ibarluzea-González

Abstract:Over the last decade, urinary lithiasis' prevalence has dramatically increased due to diet and lifestyle changes, growing 10.6% and 7.1% in men and women respectively. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy has lost relevance in current practice due to endoscopic device development and unpredictability of results. Instrument miniaturization is leading to an increase of the percutaneous approach of increasingly smaller stones, while most flexible ureteroscopes durability and digitalization has allowed urologists to address larger stones. So that, decision algorithm is now impossible to define, but what is clear is that ESWL has declined worldwide. Can it disappear as a urinary lithiasis treatment modality? If we don't improve appropriate candidate selection and optimize disintegration efficiency, guidelines are going to replace the more "boring" ESWL by popular and more attractive endoscopes. Shock wave technology has evolved in the last two decades, however lithotripsy fundamental principle has not changed. ESWL has passed the test of time and centers dedicated to stone treatment should have a lithotripter in order to offer an appropriate balance in different options for different clinical situations. New developments will be focused on improvements in location (in-line navigation systems; Vision track system) and automatic ultrasound location on a robotic arm; monitoring and stone fixation, implementation of different focal sizes with new acoustic lenses, multitask working stations that allow endourological approach, coupling control (avoiding microbubbles) and low cost devices for different applications. On the other hand, optimizing outcomes by: slower pulse rates, ramping strategies and patient selection with soft stones, short stone-skin distance, low BMI and favorable collecting system anatomy, allow us to achieve better outcomes in shock wave treatments. SWL still represents a unique non invasive method of stone disease treatment with no anesthesia and low complication rates; and a high proportion of stones could still be treated with shock waves and remains among patient's first options. This update objective has been to review the evolution, identify shock wave new developments and clarify their impact on our daily practice in urinary stones treatment.
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of renal and ureteral stones

Fábio César Miranda Torricelli,Alexandre Danilovic,Fábio Carvalho Vicentini,Giovanni Scala Marchini,Miguel Srougi,Eduardo Mazzucchi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.61.01.065

Abstract:The use of certain technical principles and the selection of favorable cases can optimize the results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). The aim of this study is to review how ESWL works, its indications and contraindications, predictive factors for success, and its complications. A search was conducted on the Pubmed® database between January 1984 and October 2013 using "shock wave lithotripsy" and "stone" as key-words. Only articles with a high level of evidence, in English, and conducted in humans, such as clinical trials or review/meta-analysis, were included. To optimize the search for the ESWL results, several technical factors including type of lithotripsy device, energy and frequency of pulses, coupling of the patient to the lithotriptor, location of the calculus, and type of anesthesia should be taken into consideration. Other factors related to the patient, stone size and density, skin to stone distance, anatomy of the excretory path, and kidney anomalies are also important. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not necessary, and routine double J stent placement before the procedure is not routinely recommended. Alpha-blockers, particularly tamsulosin, are useful for stones >10mm. Minor complications may occur following ESWL, which generally respond well to clinical interventions. The relationship between ESWL and hypertension/diabetes is not well established.
Prognostic factors of spontaneous expulsion in ureteral lithiasis

J. Sáenz Medina,R.O. Alarcón Parra,E. Redondo González,L. Llanes González,L. Crespo Martínez,L. Fernández Montarroso,M. Durán Poveda,A. Páez Borda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2173-5786(10)70218-3

2010-01-01

Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition)

Abstract:Medical treatment, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy are therapeutic options for ureteral stones. EWSL and endoscopic treatment of ureteral stones have a high success rate. However it has surgical as well as anaesthetic risks. For many patients, a medicinal treatment without invasive procedures is an option. Watchful waiting does not always result in stone clearance and may be associated with recurrent renal colic. The study of the prognostic factors for expulsion and the medical therapy will help us to select candidates for medical expulsive treatment.ObjectivesTo evaluate the characteristics of the stones and the medication administered (alpha blockers, NSAIDs or a combination of both) as predictors of spontaneous passage of the stone.Material and methodsA retrospective observational study of 260 patients with 278 ureteral stones was conducted. Primary endpoint was stone expulsion. Univariate and multivariate analysis were conducted testing the effect of stone location, size and composition, and medication (alpha-blockers, NSAIDs, or combination) on stone clearance.Results34.2% of the stones studied were spontaneously eliminated. Stone location (pelvic ureter, OR=1.823, p=0.013), size (<5mm, OR=3.37, p<0.02), and medication (combination of alpha blockers and NSAIDs, OR=8.70, p<0.001) were predictors of spontaneous clearance. Multivariate analysis confirmed size (p=0.006) and medication (p<0.001) as independent predictive factors. The use of the combination of NSAIDs and alpha-blockers versus observation multiplied times 8.21 (95% CI 3.37–20.01) the possibilities of spontaneous expulsion.ConclusionsSize of stone and medication were confirmed as independent factors for spontaneous expulsion of ureteral stones.
Factors predicting success of emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eESWL) in ureteric calculi--a single centre experience from the United Kingdom (UK)

A Panah,S Patel,A Bourdoumis,S Kachrilas,N Buchholz,J Masood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0580-9

Urolithiasis

Abstract:Few studies show that "emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eESWL)" reduces the incidence of ureteroscopy in patients with ureteric calculi. We assess success of eESWL and look to study and identify factors which predict successful outcome. We retrospectively studied patients presenting with their first episode of ureteric colic undergoing eESWL (within 72 h of presentation) over a 5-year period. Patient's age, gender, stone size and location, time between presentation and ESWL, number of shock waves and ESWL sessions, and Hounsfield units (HU) were recorded. 97 patients (mean age 40 years; 76 males, 21 females) were included. 71 patients were stone free after eESWL (73.2 %) (group 1) and 26 patients failed treatment and proceeded to ureteroscopy (group 2). The two groups were well matched for age and gender. Mean stone size in group 1 and 2 was 6.4 mm and 7.7 mm, respectively, (p = 0.00141). Stone location was 34, 21, and 16 in upper, middle and lower ureter in group 1 compared to 11, 5, and 10 in group 2, respectively. Mean HU in group 1 was 480 and 612 in group 2 (p value 0.0036). In group 2, significantly, more patients received treatment after 24 h compared with group 1 (38 vs 22.5 %). The number of shock waves, maximal intensity, and ESWL sessions were not significantly different in the two groups. No complications were noted. eESWL is safe and effective in patients with ureteric colic. Stone size and Hounsfield units are important factors in predicting success. Early treatment (≤24 h) minimizes stone impaction and increases the success rate of ESWL.
Retrograde, Antegrade, and Laparoscopic Approaches to the Management of Large Upper Ureteral Stones after Shockwave Lithotripsy Failure: A Four-Year Retrospective Study

Hongjian Zhu,Xiongjun Ye,Xuren Xiao,Xianglong Chen,Qingjiang Zhang,Hua Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0391

2014-01-01

Journal of Endourology

Abstract:Purpose: We compare the success rate and complications of retrograde ureteroscopy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of large upper ureteral stones. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 73 patients with large (1cm) upper ureteral stones at two institutions from January 2010 to May 2013. Twenty-two patients underwent retrograde ureteroscopy (group ULS), 30 patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (group PCNL), and 21 patients underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (group LS) for removal of upper ureteral stones. CT, intravenous urography, and ultrasound were performed 1 week and 1 month after surgical removal. Results: There were no significant differences in age, sex, or stone size among the three groups. Mean estimated blood loss and mean hospital stay showed a statistically significant difference among the three groups. Success rates in the PCNL, LS, and ULS groups were 100%, 90.5%, and 77.3%, respectively. The procedures of two patients in group LS were converted to open surgery because of the inability to find the ureteral stone in one patient and an adhesion too difficult to dissect in the other. The procedures of two patients in the ULS group were converted to LS, and those of three patients were converted to PCNL because of severe edema impaction at the site of the stone, a sharply angulated ureter obstruction, upward migration of the stone (seven patients), and intraoperative complications (two patients). Conclusions: Percutaneous antegrade nephrolithotomy is a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for patients with large upper ureteral stones that has several advantages over retrograde ureteroscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Thus, percutaneous antegrade nephrolithotomy is recommended as a safe and good treatment option for large upper ureteral stones. A combined procedure (e.g., ureteral push-back and percutaneous removal) can be considered in some patients.
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: retrospective study on possible predictors of treatment success and revisiting the role of non-contrast-enhanced computer tomography in kidney and ureteral stone disease

Beatriz Oliveira,Bernardo Teixeira,Martinha Magalhães,Nuno Vinagre,Avelino Fraga,Vítor Cavadas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01570-7

2024-04-19

Urolithiasis

Abstract:Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a safe and efficient treatment option for urinary stone disease. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) varies significantly. This study aimed to assess the influence of stone size, location, stone density, and skin-to-stone distance (SSD), on the outcome of ESWL. We assessed whether pre-treatment non-contrast-enhanced CT scan (NCCT) confers significant advantages compared to kidney-ureter-bladder film (KUB) only. We reviewed the medical records of 307 cases (165 men, 142 women) with renal and ureteral stones treated consecutively at our institution with ESWL between 2020 and 2023. 44 of these underwent a NCCT. The outcome of ESWL was defined in two ways: visible stone fragmentation on KUB, and the need for further treatment. Overall success of fragmentation was 85% (261 patients). 61% of patients ( n = 184) didn't need any further treatment. Stone size and location correlated significantly with treatment outcomes regarding the need for further treatment ( p = 0.004) and stone fragmentation ( p = 0.016), respectively. Unlike mean SSD ( p = 0.462), the mean attenuation value (MAV) significantly correlated with the need for retreatment ( p = 0.016). MAV seems to be a better predictor of treatment success (AUC of the ROC curve: 0.729), compared to stone size (AUC: 0.613). The difference between groups (with and without NCCT) in both treatment outcomes did not reach statistical significance. During decision-making, information regarding SSD and MAV can be useful in more dubious scenarios. However, it appears that their inclusion doesn't provide substantial advantages when compared to relying solely on KUB.

urology & nephrology
Effect of α1-Adrenergic Antagonists on Lower Ureteral Stones With Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Huijun Wang,Ke Liu,Zhigang Ji,Hanzhong Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1015-9584(10)60007-3

IF: 2.808

2010-01-01

Asian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of alpha 1-adrenergic antagonists on stone clearance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in patients with lower ureteral stones. METHODS: A total of 107 patients with solitary lower ureteral stones and who underwent single ESWL sessions were divided into two groups. Group 1 received our standard medical therapy, and group 2 was treated with 0.4 mg/day tamsulosin for a maximum of 2 weeks. All patients were re-evaluated with plain Film radiography and ultrasound each week during treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-four of the 52 patients in group 1(46.2%) and 41 of 55 patients in group 2 (74.5%) (p=0.002) were found to be stone-free. Among patients with stones 10-15 mm in diameter, the stone-free rate was 36.4% in group 1 and 73.0% in group 2 (p=0.003). Average stone expulsion time was 11.6 days and 8.1 days in groups land 2, respectively (p=0.000). Ureteral colic occurred in 10 patients (19.2%) in group 1 but only 3 patients (5.5%) in group 2 (p=0.043). The only side effect of tamsulosin was slight dizziness in 2 of the SS (3.6%) patients in group 2. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive therapy with alpha 1-adrenergic antagonists after ESWL is more effective than, and equally as safe as lithotripsy alone in the treatment of patients with lower ureteral stones. The use of alpha 1-adrenergic antagonists is more useful for stones with a large dimension, and can also reduce stone expulsion time and episodes of ureteral colic. [Asian J Surg 2010;33(1):37-41]
The effect of distal ureteral lateralization angle on ureteral trauma avoidance and successful ureteral access sheath placement

Metin Yığman,Hale Çolakoğlu Er

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2024.67996

Abstract:Background: The use of ureteral access sheaths (UAS), which offer advantages in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (fURL), may lead to undesirable conditions such as ureteral injury, ischemia, and prolonged ureteral stenosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the distal ureteral lateralization angle on successful UAS placement. Methods: We analyzed the data of patients who underwent fURL for kidney and/or proximal ureteral stones retrospectively. Based on the preoperative computed tomographic examinations of the patients, the bladder outlet was considered the zero point. We calculated the angle values between the horizontal axis passing through this point and the most lateralized point of the distal ureter. The patients were divided into two groups: those to whom UAS was successfully placed and those to whom UAS placement failed. Results: No significant difference was detected between the groups with successful UAS placement (n=36) and those without UAS placement (n=12) in terms of sex, laterality, localization, number of stones, stone burden, and bladder volumes evaluated with preoperative computed tomography (p>0.05). However, a significant difference was found between the two groups regarding age and distal ureteral lateralization angle (p<0.001, p=0.013). Conclusion: The distal ureteral lateralization angle is considered to be an effective factor in the placement of UAS in patients scheduled for fURS.
Treatment Strategies of Ureteral Stones

Stefanos Papadoukakis,Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg,Michael C. Truss

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeus.2006.07.004

2006-10-01

Abstract:Urinary stone disease is a major health care problem due to its high prevalence and incidence. There are different therapeutic approaches for ureteral stones depending on stone size, location and anatomical variations of the urogenital tract. Watchful waiting with concomitant medication (i.e., analgetics, anti-inflammatory agents, alpha-blockers) is considered an option for smaller stones (<6mm) that have a high probability for spontaneous passage. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is a minimally invasive therapeutic approach which has been widely used through the past 20 years. It is a standardized procedure which results in stone free rates between 59% and 100% depending on the size and the location of the stone as well as the type of the lithotriptor. However, more than one session are frequently needed and ureteral stenting is still a matter of debate. Ureteroscopy results in stone free rates of almost 95% in a single session. Stone removal may be achieved with forceps and baskets and with or without intraureteral stone disintegration with various lithotripsy devices. Treatment approaches should be individualized in order to achieve optimum outcomes.

Factors that Affecting Success and Re-admission in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones with Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Predicting Factors of the Success Rate of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Ureteral Stones: A Retrospective Evaluation with Large Patient Participiant

Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: Is it safe and efficient or dangerous?

Factors affecting the success of pediatric extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy therapy: 26-year experience at a single institution

Evaluating the role of urine chemistry in shock wave lithotripsy outcomes

Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones: a Comparison Study among Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Retrograde Ureterolithotripsy and Percutaneous Ureterolithotripsy

Comparison of Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy with Ureteroscopic Lasertripsy for Management of Proximal Ureteral Stones

Role of Stone Heterogeneity Index in Determining Success of Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urinary Calculi

Impact of the degree of hydronephrosis on the efficacy of in situ extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi

Prospective Evaluation of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy in Renal and Upper Ureteric Stone Treatment: Clinical Assessment and Results

CLINICAL STUDY OF SHOCK WAVE LITHORTRIPSY AFTER FAILURE OF ENDOSCOPIC LITHORTRIPSY

Greater and Lesser Ischiadic Foramina As Path of Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Distal Ureteral Stone in Children

[Current status of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in urinary lithiasis]

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of renal and ureteral stones

Prognostic factors of spontaneous expulsion in ureteral lithiasis

Factors predicting success of emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eESWL) in ureteric calculi--a single centre experience from the United Kingdom (UK)

Retrograde, Antegrade, and Laparoscopic Approaches to the Management of Large Upper Ureteral Stones after Shockwave Lithotripsy Failure: A Four-Year Retrospective Study

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: retrospective study on possible predictors of treatment success and revisiting the role of non-contrast-enhanced computer tomography in kidney and ureteral stone disease

Effect of α1-Adrenergic Antagonists on Lower Ureteral Stones With Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy

The effect of distal ureteral lateralization angle on ureteral trauma avoidance and successful ureteral access sheath placement

Treatment Strategies of Ureteral Stones