Can we predict the ancillary treatments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal and upper ureteral stones?
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.4.439
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Objective: To quantify the predictors for the ancillary treatments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for renal and upper ureteral stones.
Materials and methods: From January 2014 to January 2017, patients undergoing SWL using an electromagnetic lithotripter machine (Compact Delta; Dornier MedTech GmbH, Wessling, Germany) for renal and upper ureteral stones ≤ 20 mm were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent CT urography prior to SWL. The cohort was subdivided into three groups according to stone attenuation values in Hounsfield Units (HU). Group I; HU < 500 (n = 20), group II; HU 500-1000 (n = 51) and group III; HU ≥ 1000 (n = 180). The parameters included for multivariate analysis were stone size, location, multiplicity, stone attenuation value, number of shocks and stone clearance rate by 3 months. The ancillary treatments were ureteroscopy (URS), ureteral stenting and hospital readmission for pain or fever.
Results: A total of 251 patients were included in the study. The overall SWL success rate was 92.4%. Mean stone size was 10.9 ± 2.1, 11.6 ± 3 and 11.4 ± 3.6 mm and mean stone attenuation values were 364 ± 125, 811 ± 154 and 1285 ± 171 HU for groups I, II and III respectively. The stone clearance rates by 3 months were 96%, 92% and 88.4% for groups I, II and III respectively. On subgroup analysis, group III required ancillary treatments in 70% of patients whereas group I, II, did not require any ancillary treatments. On multivariate analysis, stone multiplicity, stone location (lower calyceal stones) and HU were independent significant predictors for the need for ancillary treatments after SWL (p values < 0.05).
Conclusions: Patients with stone attenuation value (HU) > 1000, multiple stones and/or lower calyceal stones have higher risk to necessitate ancillary treatments after SWL. These patients would likely benefit from upfront endoscopic lithotripsy for treating symptomatic renal or upper ureteral stones.
Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al. EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2014.258-89.
Jeong US, Lee S, Kang J, Han DH, Park KH, Baek M. Factors affecting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for unilateral urinary stones in children: a 17-year single-institute experience. Korean J Urol. 2013; 54(7):460-466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2013.54.7.460
Hevia M, García Á, Ancizu FJ, Merino I, Velis JM, Tienza A, Algarra R, Doménech P, Diez-Caballero F, Rosell D, Pascual JI, Robles JE.predicting the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on urinary stones, risk groups for accurate retreatment. Actas Urol Esp. 2017;41(7):451-457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2016.12.012
El-Nahas AR, EI-Assmy AM, Madbouly K, et al. Predictors of clinical significance of residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones. J Endourol. 2006;20:870–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2006.20.870
Weld KJ, Montiglio C, Morris MS, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy success for renal stones based on patient and stone computed tomography characteristics. Urology. 2007; 70:1043–1046. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.07.074
Garrido-Abad P, Rodríguez-Cabello MÁ, Platas-Sancho A. Analysis of success predictive factors in the treatment of urinary lithiasis by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. patient optimization: ESWL score. Arch Esp Urol. 2017 ;70(8):715-724.
Nakasato T, Morita J, Ogawa Y. Evaluation of Hounsfield Units as a predictive factor for the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and stone composition. Urolithiasis. 2015; 43(1):69-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0712-x
Amr M. massoud, ahmed M. abdelbary, Ahmed A. Al-dessoukey, et al. The success of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy based on the stone-attenuation value from non-contrast computed tomography. Arab J Urol. 2014; 12(2): 155–161 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2014.01.002
Abdelaziz H, Elabiad Y, Aderrouj I, et al. The usefulness of stone density and patient stoutness in predicting extracorporeal shock wave efficiency: Results in a North African ethnic group. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014; 8(7-8) DOI: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1849
Ouzaid I, Al–qahtani S, Dominique S, et al. A 970 Hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non–contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients’ selection for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from a prospective study. BJU Int. 2012; 110:438–442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10964.x
Byung-Hun Park, Hoon Choi, Jin-Bum Kim, and Young-Seop Chang. Analyzing the Effect of Distance from Skin to Stone by Computed Tomography Scan on the Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Stone-Free Rate of Renal Stones. Korean J Urol. 2012; 53(1): 40–43 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2012.53.1.40
Olivi B1, Védrine N, Costilles T, Boiteux JP, Guy L. Extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with body mass index over 35 Kg/m2. Prog Urol. 2011; 21(4):254-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2010.11.005
Bandi G, Meiners RJ, Pickhardt PJ, Nakada SY. Stone measurement by volumetric three-dimensional computed tomography for predicting the outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. BJU Int. 2009; 103(4):524-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08069.x
Talas H, Kilic O, Tangal S, Safak M. Does lower-pole caliceal anatomy predict stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy for primary lower-pole nephrolithiasis?. Urol Int. 2007;79(2):129-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000106325
Al-Ansari A1, As-Sadiq K, Al-Said S, Younis N, Jaleel OA, Shokeir AA. Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol. 2006;38(1):63-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-005-3155-z
Ghoneim IA, Ziada AM, Elkatib SE. Predictive factors of lower calyceal stone clearance after Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (ESWL): a focus on the infundibulopelvic anatomy. Eur Urol. 2005;48(2):296-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.02.017
Wang LJ1, Wong YC, Chuang CK. Predictions of outcomes of renal stones after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy from stone characteristics determined by unenhanced helical computed tomography: a multivariate analysis. Eur Radiol. 2005; 15(11):2238-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2742-9
Abdel-Khalek M, Sheir KZ, Mokhtar AA, Eraky I, Kenawy M, Bazeed M. Prediction of success rate after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of renal stones--a multivariate analysis model. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2004;38(2):161-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00365590310022626
Sumino Y, Mimata H, Tasaki Y, Ohno H, Hoshino T, Nomura T, Nomura Y. Predictors of lower pole renal stone clearance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2002;168 (4 Pt 1):1344-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64445-X
Zhang W, Zhou T, Wu T, 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 Endourol. 2015;29:745-59 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0799
Junbo L, Yugen L, Guo J, Jing H, Ruichao Y, Tao W. 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 J. 2019 Jan 1. doi: 10.22037/uj.v0i0.4681.
Bozzini G, Verze P, Arcaniolo D, et al. A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience: A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones. World J Urol. 2017;35:1967-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2084-7
Copyright (c) 2022 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
