https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2026.14975
Outcomes and predictors of success after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: a retrospective study
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.
Published: 28 August 2026
Objective: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a first-line treatment for renal stones, yet outcomes are variable. This study aimed to identify predictors of stone clearance, complications, and number of treatment sessions in patients undergoing ESWL for kidney stones.
Patients and methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at Aden Affiliated University Hospital (January 2017-May 2024) including 798 adults undergoing ESWL for renal stones. Primary outcome was stone clearance (< 4 mm residuals at three months). Secondary outcomes were complications and number of sessions. Univariate and multivariable logistic and Poisson regression were performed with Bonferroni correction.
Results: The cohort was predominantly male (99.6%) with median age 38 years (IQR 13). Median stone size was 9 mm (IQR 4) and density 1000 HU (IQR 450). Overall stone clearance was 86.8% (672 of 774 evaluable patients).. In univariate analysis, factors associated with clearance were lower BMI (OR 0.95 per kg/m², 95% CI 0.91-1.00, p = 0.05), smaller stone size (OR 0.94 per mm, 95% CI 0.88-1.00, p = 0.06), lower stone density (OR 0.98 per 100 HU, 95% CI 0.97-0.99, p < 0.001), and shorter skin-to-stone distance (OR 0.84 per mm, 95% CI 0.74-0.95, p 0.01). After multivariable adjustment, only stone density remained independently predictive (adjusted OR 0.98 per 100 HU, 95% CI 0.97-0.99, p < 0.001), and middle calyx location predicted better clearance than lower calyx (adjusted OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.09-6.68, p = 0.03). Complications occurred in 14 patients (1.8%) and were associated with low pain tolerance (OR 16.74, 95% CI 4.09-68.54, p < 0.001) and anticoagulation (OR 59.31, 95% CI 3.53-997.2, p = 0.004). Median sessions was 1 (range 1-4); higher number of sessions correlated univariately with power level (ρ = 0.191, p < 0.001), size (ρ = 0.144, p < 0.001), and density (ρ = 0.124, p < 0.001), but none remained significant at multivariable assessment.
Conclusions: Stone density is the strongest independent predictor of ESWL success, with higher density associated with significantly lower clearance. Middle calyx stones have better outcomes than lower calyx. Complications are rare but more frequent with low pain tolerance and anticoagulation. These findings guide patient selection and counseling.
Downloads
1. Alelign T, Petros B. Kidney Stone Disease: An Update on Current Concepts. Adv Urol. 2018; 2018:3068365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3068365
2. Akram M, Somani B. Epidemiology and Management of Kidney Stone Disease - Current Insights. Res Rep Urol. 2025; 17:449-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S517758
3. Manzoor H, Leslie SW, Saikali SW. Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL) ineligible companies. Disclosure: Stephen Leslie declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies. Disclosure: Shady Saikali declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.: StatPearls Publishing Copyright© 2025, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2025.
4. Setthawong V, Srisubat A, Potisat S, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023; 8:Cd007044. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007044.pub4
5. Nazim S. Advancements in Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Pushing Boundaries with Innovative Technology and Techniques. 2023.
6. Muter S, Abd Z, Saeed R. Renal stone density on native CT-scan as a predictor of treatment outcomes in shock wave lithotripsy. J Med Life. 2022; 15:1579-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25122/jml-2022-0153
7. Ichiyanagi O, Fukuhara H, Kurokawa M, et al. Reinforcement of the Triple D score with simple addition of the intrarenal location for the prediction of the stone-free rate after shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones 10-20 mm in diameter. Int Urol Nephrol. 2019; 51:239-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-018-02066-1
8. Salah M, Al-Ghashmi M, Tallai B, et al. Performance of 'Triple-D' and 'Quadruple-D' scores compared to a regression-based predictive model for treatment outcomes in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2025; 97:14265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2025.14265
9. 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; 48:296-302; discussion DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.02.017
10. Bovelander E, Weltings S, Rad M, et al. The Influence of Pain on the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy. Curr Urol. 2019; 12:81-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000489424
11. Yoon JH, Park S, Kim SC, et al. Outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones according to ESWL intensity. Transl Androl Urol. 2021; 10:1588-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1397
12. Al-Zubi M, Al Sleibi A, Elayan BM, et al. The effect of stone and patient characteristics in predicting extra-corporal shock wave lithotripsy success rate: A cross sectional study. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021; 70:102829. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102829
13. Salah M, Al-Ghashmi M, Baker A, et al. Interpretable machine learning prediction of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for urinary stones: a retrospective cohort study. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2025; 97(4):14333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2025.14333
14. Ergün M, Sag˘ır S. Factors determining the number of sessions in successful extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. Open Med (Wars). 2025; 20:20251276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2025-1276
15. Garg M, Johnson H, Lee S-m, et al. Role of Hounsfield Unit in Predicting Outcomes of Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi: Outcomes of a Systematic Review. Current Urology Reports. 2023;24:173-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-023-01145-w
16. Iqbal N, Hasan A, Nazar A, et al. Role of Stone Heterogeneity Index in Determining Success of Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urinary Calculi. J Clin Transl Res. 2021; 7:241-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18053/jctres.07.202102.006
17. Massoud AM, Abdelbary AM, Al-Dessoukey AA, et al. The success of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy based on the stone-attenuation value from non-contrast computed tomography. Arab J Urol. 2014; 12:155-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2014.01.002
18. Kim TB, Park HK, Lee KY, et al. Life-threatening complication after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for a renal stone: a hepatic subcapsular hematoma. Korean J Urol. 2010; 51:212-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2010.51.3.212
19. D'Addessi A, Vittori M, Racioppi M, et al. Complications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary stones: to know and to manage them-a review. ScientificWorldJournal. 2012; 2012:619820. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/619820
20. Al-Naggar K, Aljuma’ai N, Ahmed F, et al. Prevalence of urolithiasis in children from the EMRO region: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Emergency Medicine, Trauma and Acute Care. 2025; 2025(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5339/jemtac.2025.40
21. Alhakamy M, AlShoaibi I, Abdo B, et al. Prevalence of urolithiasis in adults of the Eastern Mediterranean region: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Urological Science. 2025; 36:176-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/us9.0000000000000076
22. Hevia M, García Á, Ancizu FJ, et al. Predicting the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on urinary tract stones. Risk groups for accurate retreatment. Actas Urol Esp. 2017; 41:451-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2016.12.012
23. Salah M, Al-Ghashmi M, Tallai , et al. Predictors of treatment failure and outcome assessment of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with the Dornier Compact Delta(R) III Pro: experience from the first 1000 treatments. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2025;97:13867. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2025.13867
24. Fadallah M, Abdelhalim A, Hashem A, et al. The Ideal Interval Between Repeated Shockwaves Lithotripsy Sessions for Renal Stones: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Endourol. 2023; 37:1305-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0345
25. Bres-Niewada E, Dybowski B, Radziszewski P. Predicting stone composition before treatment - can it really drive clinical decisions? Cent European J Urol. 2014; 67:392-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2014.04.art15
26. 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(11 Pt B):E438-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10964.x
27. Yang R, Zhao D, Ye C, et al. Predicting ESWL success for ureteral stones: a radiomics-based machine learning approach. BMC Med Imaging. 2025; 25:268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-025-01817-8
28. Talyshinskii A, Ali S, Gauhar V, et al. CT-based radiomics for predicting stone-free rate after ESWL: a systematic review and metaanalysis. World Journal of Urology. 2025; 43):566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05933-6
29. Lee JY, Kim JH, Kang DH, et al. Stone heterogeneity index as the standard deviation of Hounsfield units: A novel predictor for shockwave lithotripsy outcomes in ureter calculi. Sci Rep. 2016;6:2398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23988
30. Kim SC, Burns EK, Lingeman JE, et al. Cystine calculi: correlation of CT-visible structure, CT number, and stone morphology with fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Res. 2007; 35:319-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-007-0117-1
31. Bhatta KM, Prien EL, Jr., Dretler SP. Cystine calculi--rough and smooth: a new clinical distinction. J Urol. 1989; 142:937-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)38946-2
32. The Impact of Renal Lower Pole Radiographic Anatomy on the clearance of Stone fragments after Extracorporeal Shock wave Lithotripsy. Medical Forum Monthly. 2024; 22(8).
33. Liu LR, Li QJ, Wei Q, et al. Percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy for the passage of lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 2013:Cd008569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008569.pub2
34. Owen K, Joe W, Ivander A, et al. Role of Noncontrast Computed Tomography Parameters in Predicting the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Upper Urinary Stones Cases: A Meta-analysis. Academic Radiology. 2024; 31:3282-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2023.10.021
35. Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT, Jr., Nakada SY. Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology. 2005; 66:941-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.011
36. Geraghty R, Pietropaolo A, Tzelves L, et al. Which Measure of Stone Burden is the Best Predictor of Interventional Outcomes in Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis by the YAU Urolithiasis Working Group and EAU Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2025; 71:22-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2024.10.024
37. Alsaikhan B, Andonian S. Shock wave lithotripsy in patients requiring anticoagulation or antiplatelet agents. Can Urol Assoc J. 2011; 5:53-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.09140
38. Dhar NB, Thornton J, Karafa MT, Streem SB. A multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with subcapsular hematoma formation following electromagnetic shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2004; 172(6 Pt 1):2271-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000143459.03836.2d
39. Knapp R, Frauscher F, Helweg G, et al. Blood pressure changes after extracorporeal shock wave nephrolithotripsy: prediction by intrarenal resistive index. Eur Radiol. 1996; 6:665-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00187669
40. Kostakopoulos A, Stavropoulos NJ, Macrychoritis C, et al. Subcapsular hematoma due to ESWL: risk factors. A study of 4,247 patients. Urol Int. 1995; 55:21-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000282741
41. Nussberger F, Roth B, Metzger T, et al. A low or high BMI is a risk factor for renal hematoma after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for kidney stones. Urolithiasis. 2017; 45:317-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0915-4
42. Skuginna V, Nguyen DP, Seiler R, et al. Does Stepwise Voltage Ramping Protect the Kidney from Injury During Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy? Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial. Eur Urol. 2016; 69:267-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.017
Ethics Approval
CRediT authorship contribution
Mazen Karama: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Visualization; Farida Noman: Investigation, Data curation, Project administration, Writing - review & editing; Ahmed Karama: Methodology, Formal analysis, Software, Validation, Writing - review & editing; Faisal Ahmed: Conceptualization, Supervision, Resources, Writing - review & editing, Corresponding author. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Supporting Agencies
Data Availability Statement
The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions.
How to Cite
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.