Complications and outcomes following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective study of 3241 patients. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC. 2010;38:135-142. [PMID: 20016885 DOI: 10.1007/s00240-009-0247-8]

Impact of advanced lithotripter technology on SWL success: ınsights from Modulith SLK ınline outcomes

AIM

This study aims to evaluate the success rate of Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) in treating kidney stones using the Modulith SLK Inline lithotripter, with a focus on the importance of device efficacy as emphasized in EAU guidelines.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-center study was conducted between June 2023 and June 2024. Inclusion criteria were adult patients (> 18 years) with radiologically confirmed renal stones smaller than 15 mm in diameter. Exclusion criteria included patients with solitary kidneys, significant renal functional deterioration, skeletal deformities, active urinary tract infections, pregnancy, or coagulopathies. Treatment outcomes were collected and analyzed in detail, considering patients' demographic characteristics (age, gender) and stone parameters (size, location, and hardness [Hounsfield Unit, HU]). The SWL procedures were performed using the Modulith SLK Inline lithotripter (Storz Medical, Switzerland). The success of SWL was defined as achieving complete stone clearance or the presence of clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRF) (< 4 mm). This study seeks to provide detailed insights into the optimal use cases of SWL as a non-invasive yet effective treatment option for smaller, more manageable stones.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 208 patients included in the study was 42.2 ± 12.7 years (18-75), with a male-to-female ratio of 1.9:1. The mean stone size across all patients was 10.3 mm, and the average HU value was 874.0 ± 283.2. Patients who achieved a completely stone-free status had significantly lower HU values (p = 0.049). The overall success rate of SWL was 78.8%, with 164 patients achieving complete stone clearance. When cases with clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRF, < 4 mm) were included as successful outcomes, the overall success rate increased to 92.3%. This distinction highlights the inclusion of patients with small residual fragments that are deemed clinically irrelevant in the adjusted success rate. In cases with successful outcomes, the mean stone size was 10.3 mm, whereas it was 12.5 mm in patients with residual fragments or treatment failure. A statistically significant relationship was identified between stone size and treatment success rates (p < 0.001). In contrast, stone localization did not have a significant impact on SWL success rates (p = 0.377).

CONCLUSIONS

SWL has demonstrated its effectiveness in kidney stone treatment with a 78.8% complete stone-free rate using the Modulith SLK Inline lithotripter. Higher success rates were achieved with smaller stones (< 15 mm) and lower HU values. These findings support the significance of advanced lithotripter technology in establishing SWL as a valuable non-invasive option for stones under 15 mm.

Does pre-stenting influence outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether preoperative use of JJ stents in patients undergoing shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) impacts on stone clearance and the rate of postoperative complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We screened multiple databases from inception to January 2021, using the relevant search terms for SWL in patients with a preoperative stent. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials of ≥20 patients aged >18 years who had had SWL with a JJ stent. This review has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42023443195). Statistical analysis was performed using 'meta' in R.

RESULTS

There were seven eligible studies (403 patients receiving JJ stents and 394 controls). There was no significant difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) following SWL with a JJ stent compared to SWL alone. When considering the complication rates, there was a significantly reduced risk of steinstrasse in patients with a JJ stent. However, there was no significant difference in the risk of other complications including pain, fever, and haematuria, and no significant difference in the likelihood of requiring auxiliary procedures or re-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a reduced risk of steinstrasse in patients undergoing SWL with a JJ stent compared to SWL alone. However, there was no significant difference in the risk of other postoperative complications. Use of a JJ stent had no effect on the efficacy of SWL, with no significant difference in the SFR.

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

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.

The Effect of Shock Wave Lithotripsy on Male and Female Sexual Dysfunction in Patients with Proximal Ureteral Stones

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to investigate the effects of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment for proximal ureteral stones on the sexual functions of patients of both genders.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 30 female and 72 male patients who had received SWL treatment for proximal ureteral stones in our clinic between August 2019 and October 2020 were evaluated. CT, creatinine, urinary analysis, and culture were performed during the initial consultation for all patients. Information regarding the age, BMI, and stone burden of the patients was recorded. Male patients answered the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) questionnaire, and female participants answered the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) 3 times: pre-procedural and post-procedural first and third month. CT was repeated on the first month, and any residues were noted.

RESULTS

The mean IIEF-5 scores of the male patients were 23.11 ± 8.11 prior to surgery, and it decreased to 19.74 ± 7.65 in the first month and 23.88 ± 9.23 in the third, p = 0.001. The mean FSFI scores of female patients were 18.2 ± 9.9, which decreased to 12.8 ± 6.12 in the first month and 17.8 ± 8.66 in the third, p = 0.001. Univariate analysis revealed that the patients' age (male: p = 0.004 and female: p = 0.008) and BMI (male: p = 0.044 and female: p = 0.027) were related to the poorer scores for both genders. However, there were not any significant findings regarding stone burden (male: p = 0.054 and female: p = 0.078).

CONCLUSIONS

The possibility of developing temporary sexual dysfunction should be taken into account for patients who are candidates for SWL treatment. As the patient's age and BMI increase, SWL-related sexual dysfunction becomes more severe.

How to maximize the efficacy of shockwave lithotripsy

Since its introduction in the early 1980s, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) has proven to be a minimally invasive and efficient procedure for the management of renal calculi. It is currently one of the most recommended treatments for small- and medium-sized stones (<20 mm) in most guidelines internationally. The recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak could lead to a further increase in ESWL use as it avoids a general anesthetic and its potential complications in patients with COVID-19 infection. Most publications exhibit ESWL stone-free rates (SFRs) of 70%-80%; however, this is often not the case in many centers, with multiple factors affecting the efficacy of the intervention. Various stone and patient factors have been shown to influence the ESWL success. Stone position, density and size, skin-to-stone distance, and body-mass index contribute to SFRs. Modifications in the lithotripter design and revisions in the technique have also improved the SFRs over the years, with slower shock rates, power-ramping protocols, combined real-time ultrasound, and fluoroscopy imaging technology, all enhancing the efficacy. The adjuvant use of pharmacological agents, such as alpha-blockers, potassium citrate, and the emerging microbubble technology, has also been investigated and shown promising results. Arguably, the most significant determinant of the success of ESWL in a particular unit is how the lithotripsy service is set up and monitored. Careful patient selection, dedicated personnel, and post-treatment imaging review are essential for the optimization of ESWL. Through an analysis of the published studies, this review aimed to explore the measures that contribute to an effectual lithotripsy service in depth.

Effect of JJ stent on outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment of moderate sized renal pelvic stones: A randomized prospective study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of JJ stents on SWL treatment of moderate (15-25mm) renal pelvic stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2016 and December 2017, a total of 152 adult patients who were planned to undergo SWL for a single radiopaque renal pelvic stone were included in the study. Patients with solitary kidney, congenital abnormality, skeletal tract abnormalities, previous urinary system surgery, hydronephrosis (grade 2 or more), untreated urinary tract infection, bleeding disorder, and suspected pregnancy were excluded. The remaining 114 patients were randomly divided into two groups; non-stented and stented. Twenty-two patients whose stone could not be fragmented despite 3 consecutive sessions were also excluded from the study. A total of 92 patients (54 non-stented and 38 stented) were included in the final analysis.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in terms of age, sex, body mass index, renal parancyhimal thickness, hydronephrosis, skin-to-stone distance, Hounsfield units, and stone size between the groups. Success was significantly higher in the stented group than in the non-stented group (71% vs. 39%, P=.002). In stone-free patients, the number of emergency department visits and analgesic tablet consumption was significantly lower in the stented group than in the non-stented group (P<.001 and P<.001, respectively). In non- stone-free patients, analgesic tablet consumption was significantly lower in the stented group than in the non-stented group (P=.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-stenting before SWL treatment of moderate sized renal pelvic stones has some advantages in terms of success, emergency service visits, and analgesic tablet consumption.

Does Previous Failed Shockwave Lithotripsy Treatment Have an Influence on Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Outcome?

Background: The prevalence of urolithiasis is nearly 20% and patients with urolithiasis constitute an essential part of the patients referred to the urology clinic. Many parameters should be considered for the management of renal stones and authors recommend extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNL), as treatment options. Among these techniques, SWL does not require general anesthesia, has 89% success rate for renal pelvic stones: 83% for upper caliceal stones, 84% for middle caliceal stones, and 68% for lower caliceal stones. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether the previously failed SWL treatment affects RIRS outcome. Methods: Patients who underwent RIRS for kidney stones between January 2012 and December 2017 in Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital were reviewed retrospectively. Patients treated with primary RIRS (186 patients) were classified as Group 1. The outcomes of these patients were compared with those of 186 patients who underwent RIRS after failed SWL treatment using matched-pair analysis, and these patients were classified as Group 2. Results: The procedure success was defined as the sum of the stone-free and clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRFs); final success rates were 90.3% and 91.9%, respectively. If we compare the final success rates, there was no statistically significant difference between both groups (P = .584). Conclusions: As a result, there is no negative effect of the previous unsuccessful SWL treatment on the RIRS success. Patients with CIRF should be followed up more carefully in terms of becoming symptomatic.

Factors Affecting the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy in Urinary Stone Treatment

Objectives

We sought to evaluate the factors affecting the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in urinary stone treatment.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of 235 adult patients treated with ESWL, for radiopaque renal or ureteric stones between January 2015 and December 2016. Patient's age, sex, stone size, laterality, location, density, skin-to-stone distance (SSD), and presence of double J stent were studied as potential predictors. At the end of three months, the patients were divided into success and failure groups and the significance was determined.

Results

Of the 235 patients (188 males and 47 females) analyzed, ESWL was successful in 79.1%. Univariate analysis of both groups revealed no significant difference in patient's age and stone laterality. Statistically significant differences in gender, stone size, stone site, stone density, SSD, and patients with stents were observed. Statistically significant factors in multivariate logistic regression analysis were sex and stent. Females had three-times higher risk for ESWL failure than males (odds ratio (OR) = 3.213; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.194-8.645; p = 0.021) and a higher failure rate when a stent was used (OR = 6.358; 95% CI: 2.228-18.143; p = 0.001).

Conclusions

This study revealed that ESWL can treat renal and ureteric stones successfully with an inverse association between outcome and predictors such as stone size and density, SSD, and stent presence. These factors can help us in improving patient selection and ensure better results at lower cost.

Hospital admission for treatment of complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: a study of risk factors

The objective of this study was to determine risk factors of hospital admission for treatment of complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). The electronic files and images of all patients who underwent SWL for treatment of renal stones between January 2011 and December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent SWL with the same electromagnetic lithotripter (Dornier Lithotripot S). The data of those who needed hospital admission for treatment of complications within 30 days after SWL were compared with patients who did not require hospital admission. Compared data included patients' demographics (age, gender, BMI, ASA score, and pre-SWL stenting), renal characters (side, hydronephrosis, and solitary kidney), and stone characters (site, length, density, and previous treatment). Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were used to identify risk factors. The study included 1179 patients. Complications that required hospital admission were observed in 108 patients (9.2%). They included obstructing steinstrasse in 91 (7.7%), peri-renal hematoma in 3 (0.25%), and fever (>38.0 °C) in 14 (1.2%). Independent risk factors on multivariate analysis were solitary kidney (OR 2.855, P = 0.017), pre-SWL stenting (RR 2.03, P = 0.044), ASA II (OR 1.965, P = 0.007), hydronephrosis (RR 1.639, P = 0.024), and stone length (RR 1.083, P < 0.001). Patients with medical co-morbidities, pre-SWL ureteral stents, large stones and those with obstructed and/or solitary renal unit are more liable to post-SWL complications that need hospital admission. The probability of hospital admission has to be explained to patients with these risk factors.

Hypovolemic Shock Caused by Massive Renal Hematoma After a Third Consecutive Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Session: A Case Report

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a commonly used technique for treating urinary calculi. Although noninvasive, highly effective, and widely accepted, SWL is not without complications. Next to fragmenting the calculi, the surrounding tissue is damaged, which can result in renal hematoma, a well-described complication. In most cases, the collateral tissue damage is mild and resolves with conservative treatment. However, rarely, severe complications may arise. Here we present a case of a 46-year-old male who developed a massive hematoma, both subcapsular and retroperitoneal, after a third consecutive SWL session, resulting in hypovolemic shock. Different probable causes are proposed, of which one cause, the length of the interval between SWL sessions, is not yet studied properly. Probably, short intervals keep the damaged tissue from healing sufficiently, as proposed in our case. Possibly, life-threatening situations can be avoided if more evidence-based guidelines are available.

Immediate versus delayed shockwave lithotripsy for inaccessible stones after uncomplicated percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of immediate versus delayed shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for inaccessible stones after uncomplicated percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

Patients and methods

Between December 2011 and June 2014, patients with residual inaccessible stones after uncomplicated PCNL were prospectively randomised into two treatment groups; Group I, immediate SWL and Group II, delayed SWL at 1 week after PCNL. Patients with residual stones of ⩾1.5 cm, a stone density of >1000 Hounsfield units and body mass index of >40 kg/m² were excluded from the study. The following data were reported: patients’ demographics, stone characteristics after PCNL, hospital stay, perioperative complications, stent duration, and stone-free rate (SFR).

Results

In all, 84 patients (51 males and 33 females) with mean (SD) age of 39 (8.5) years were included in the study. Group I included 44 patients, whilst Group II included 40 patients. There was no statistically significant difference amongst the groups for patients’ demographics, stone characteristics, and perioperative complications. The hospital stay was significantly shorter in Group I, at a mean (SD) of 34 (3.7) vs 45 (2.9) h (P < 0.001). The duration of ureteric stenting was significantly lower in Group I as compared to Group II, at a mean (SD) of 12 (4.2) vs 25 (3.5) days (P < 0.001). The SFR was 93.2% and 95% in Groups I and II, respectively (P = 0.9).

Conclusions

Immediate SWL after PCNL is as effective and safe as delayed SWL with a lesser hospital stay and duration of ureteric stenting.

Ureteral stenting can be a negative predictor for successful outcome following shock wave lithotripsy in patients with ureteral stones

Purpose

To evaluate ureteral stenting as a negative predictive factor influencing ureteral stone clearance and to estimate the probability of one-session success in shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) patients with a ureteral stone.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 1,651 patients who underwent their first SWL. Among these patients, 680 had a ureteral stone measuring 4–20 mm and were thus eligible for our study. The 57 patients who underwent ureteral stenting during SWL were identified. Maximal stone length (MSL), mean stone density (MSD), skin-to-stone distance (SSD), and stone heterogeneity index (SHI) were determined by pre-SWL noncontrast computed tomography.

Results

After propensity score matching, 399 patients were extracted from the total patient cohort. There were no significant differences between stenting and stentless groups after matching, except for a higher one-session success rate in the stentless group (78.6% vs. 49.1%, p=0.026). In multivariate analysis, shorter MSL, lower MSD, higher SHI, and absence of a stent were positive predictors for one-session success in patients who underwent SWL. Using cutoff values of MSL and MSD obtained from receiver operator curve analysis, in patients with a lower MSD (≤784 HU), the success rate was lower in those with a stent (61.1%) than in those without (83.5%) (p=0.001). However, in patients with a higher MSL (>10 mm), the success rate was lower in those with a stent (23.6%) than in those without (52.2%) (p=0.002).

Conclusions

Ureteral stenting during SWL was a negative predictor of one-session success in patients with a ureteral stone.

Does lithotripsy increase stone recurrence? A comparative study between extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and non-fragmenting percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Objectives

To investigate the effect of stone fragmentation on late stone recurrence by comparing the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and non-fragmenting percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and to investigate factors contributing to recurrent calculi.

Patients and methods

We evaluated stone recurrence in 647 patients who initially achieved a stone-free status after ESWL and compared the outcomes to 137 stone-free patients treated with PCNL without stone fragmentation. Patients were evaluated every 3 months during the first year and every 6 months thereafter to censorship or time of first new stone formation. Stone recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. The effects of demographics, stone characteristics, and intervention on the recurrence rate were studied using the log-rank test and the Cox-regression analysis.

Results

For ESWL the recurrence rates were 0.8%, 35.8% and 60.1% after 1, 5 and 10 years, which were comparable to the 1.5%, 35.5% and 74.9%, respectively found in the PCNL group (P = 0.57). Stone burden (>8 mm) and a previous history of stone disease were significantly associated with higher recurrence rates regardless of the method of stone intervention (P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively). In the ESWL group, a stone length of >8 mm showed a higher recurrence rate (P = 0.007). In both the ESWL and PCNL groups, there was a significant shift from baseline stone location, with an increased tendency for most new stones to recur in the calyces as opposed to the pelvis.

Conclusions

In comparison with PCNL, ESWL does not increase long-term stone recurrence in patients who become stone-free. The stone burden appears to be the primary factor in predicting stone recurrence after ESWL.

Does Transient Cessation of Antiplatelet Medication Prior to Shock Wave Lithotripsy Have Any Safety Concern: Evaluation of the Short Term Safety Results

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to evaluate the true safety of transient cessation of the antiplatelet medication before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) on bleeding-related complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty cases undergoing SWL for renal pelvic stones were included and depending on the use of antiplatelet medication they were divided into 2 groups namely: group 1, cases under antiplatelet medication in whom the medication was stopped before ESWL; and group 2, cases without any antiplatelet medication. Comparative evaluation of patient, stone and treatment-related parameters were done in both groups.

RESULTS

Although microscopic hematuria was present in all cases, the incidence of macroscopic hematuria was higher in cases undergoing antiplatelet medication when compared with the other cases. Regarding the microscopic hematuria again, the mean number erythrocytes per field of analysis was significantly higher in group 1 cases. The mean value of the hematoma size was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that SWL can be applied safely in patients under antiplatelet therapy following the cessation of medication for a certain period of time. However, among the cases treated with this concept in our study, we clearly observed that the incidence of procedure-related hematoma formation and macroscopic hematuria were more common in such cases than in the normal ones.

Tamsulosin or Silodosin Adjuvant Treatment Is Ineffective in Improving Shockwave Lithotripsy Outcome: A Short-Term Follow-Up Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

The role of α-blockers after shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is controversial. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of tamsulosin and silodosin after SWL for kidney stones.

METHODS

From 2012 onward, a consecutive series of patients undergoing SWL were prospectively enrolled and randomized by closed envelopes in three groups receiving tamsulosin 0.4 mg (A), silodosin 8 mg (B), and placebo (C) daily for 21 days after SWL. Anthropometrics, stone size, and location were recorded before SWL. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was collected at 6, 12, and 24 hours after treatment to evaluate patients' discomfort. Stone-free rate was assessed 1 and 3 weeks postoperatively. Complications and medical treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Differences in VAS score, stone-free rate, and complications were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 60 patients were enrolled. Mean stone sizes were 10.28 ± 2.46 mm, 10.45 ± 1.73 mm, and 9.23 ± 2.04 mm in groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = 0.474). There was no significant difference between the three groups with regard to stone location. Comparable energy was used to treat patients from the three groups. The overall 3-week stone-free rate was 53%: 58% in the tamsulosin group, 47% in the silodosin group, and 55% in the placebo group (p = 0.399). No significant differences were observed in the VAS scores reported by the groups at 6 hours (p = 1.254), 12 hours (p = 0.075), and 24 hours (p = 0.490). Overall, 12 complications were reported: 11 patients (7 in group C and 4 in group B) needed analgesics for colic, and 1 patient (group B) was surgically treated for Steinstrasse. Tamsulosin was superior to placebo (p = 0.008) and silodosin (p = 0.021) in preventing complications; no difference between silodosin and placebo (p = 0.629) was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin and silodosin are ineffective in increasing stone-free rate as well as early patients' discomfort after extracorporeal lithotripsy.

Risk factors for formation of steinstrasse after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal calculi: a multivariate analysis model

OBJECTIVES

To define various stone, renal and therapy factors that could affect steinstrasse (SS) formation after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for pediatric kidney stones. Thus, SS could be anticipated and prophylactically avoided

METHODS

From January 1999 through December 2012, 317 children underwent SWL with Dornier Lithotripter S for the treatment of renal stones. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses of patients, stones and therapy characteristics in relation to the incidence of SS were performed to detect the factors that had a significant impact on SS formation.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of SS was 8.5%. The steinstrasse was in the pelvic ureter in 74.1% of the cases, lumbar ureter in 18.5% and iliac ureter in 7.4%. Steinstrasse incidence significantly correlated with stone size, site and age of child. Steinstrasse was more common with increasing stone length and stones located in renal pelvis or upper calyx with the age below 4 years. A statistical model was constructed to estimate the risk of steinstrasse formation accurately. The equation for logistic regression is Z = -4.758 + B for age + B for size stone X length in mm + B for stone site.

CONCLUSIONS

The stone size, site and age are the most important risk factors responsible for SS formation in children. Our regression analysis model can help with prospective identification of children who will be at risk of SS formation. Those children at high risk of SS formation should be closely monitored or treated by endoscopic maneuvers from the start.

[Effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for kidney stones treatment]

Primary endpoint was to objective a better effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) compared to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) 3 months after treatment of a unique kidney stone from 5 to 20mm. Secondary endpoints were to evaluate effectiveness in subgroup and tolerance. We conducted a prospective comparative randomised trial between May 2012 and February 2014. A computerised tomography was done before treatment and another 3 months after treatment. Of the 30 randomised patients, 8 dropped out from the study and 4 were lost to follow-up. Median time of follow-up was 3.82 months. In per-protocol analysis, success rate was 60% for fURS group versus 28.6% for ESWL group (P=0.29). In intention to treat analysis, success rate was 77.8% in fURS group versus 53.8% in ESWL group (P=0.38). In ESWL group, 5 patients (41.7%) needed a second treatment versus none in fURS group but it was not significant. During follow-up, 1 patient in each group presented a complication. Results of this feasibility study did not allowed to conclude on superiority of a technic. A multicenter study with more important enrollment is necessary considering economic side and tolerance of these treatments.

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

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.

Low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy promotes vascular endothelial growth factor expression and improves locomotor recovery after spinal cord injury

Object

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is widely used for the clinical treatment of various human diseases. Recent studies have demonstrated that low-energy ESWT upregulates the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and promotes angiogenesis and functional recovery in myocardial infarction and peripheral artery disease. Many previous reports suggested that VEGF produces a neuroprotective effect to reduce secondary neural tissue damage after spinal cord injury (SCI). The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether lowenergy ESWT promotes VEGF expression and neuroprotection and improves locomotor recovery after SCI.

Methods

Sixty adult female Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into 4 groups: sham group (laminectomy only), sham-SW group (low-energy ESWT applied after laminectomy), SCI group (SCI only), and SCI-SW group (low-energy ESWT applied after SCI). Thoracic spinal cord contusion injury was inflicted using an impactor. Low-energy ESWT was applied to the injured spinal cord 3 times a week for 3 weeks. Locomotor function was evaluated using the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan (BBB) Scale (open field locomotor score) at different time points over 42 days after SCI. Hematoxylin and eosin staining was performed to assess neural tissue damage in the spinal cord. Neuronal loss was investigated by immunostaining for NeuN. The mRNA expressions of VEGF and its receptor, Flt-1, in the spinal cord were assessed using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Immunostaining for VEGF was performed to evaluate VEGF protein expression in the spinal cord.

Results

In both the sham and sham-SW groups, no animals showed locomotor impairment on BBB scoring. Histological analysis of H & E and NeuN stainings in the sham-SW group confirmed that no neural tissue damage was induced by the low-energy ESWT. Importantly, animals in the SCI-SW group demonstrated significantly better locomotor improvement than those in the SCI group at 7, 35, and 42 days after injury (p < 0.05). The number of NeuN-positive cells in the SCI-SW group was significantly higher than that in the SCI group at 42 days after injury (p < 0.05). In addition, mRNA expressions of VEGF and Flt-1 were significantly increased in the SCI-SW group compared with the SCI group at 7 days after injury (p < 0.05). The expression of VEGF protein in the SCI-SW group was significantly higher than that in the SCI group at 7 days (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The present study showed that low-energy ESWT significantly increased expressions of VEGF and Flt-1 in the spinal cord without any detrimental effect. Furthermore, it significantly reduced neuronal loss in damaged neural tissue and improved locomotor function after SCI. These results suggested that low-energy ESWT enhances the neuroprotective effect of VEGF in reducing secondary injury and leads to better locomotor recovery following SCI. This study provides the first evidence that low-energy ESWT can be a safe and promising therapeutic strategy for SCI.

Evaluation of acute post-shock wave lithotripsy renal changes by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective clinical study

PURPOSE

We studied acute renal morphological and hemodynamic changes after shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 60 adult patients with a single renal stone 25 mm or less in a radiologically normal urinary tract were eligible for shock wave lithotripsy and included in analysis. Study exclusion criteria were hypertension, diabetes mellitus, previous recent stone management and other contraindications to shock wave lithotripsy. Renal perfusion and morphological changes were evaluated by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging before, and 2 to 4 hours and 1 week after lithotripsy.

RESULTS

In all cases there was a statistically significant decrease in renal perfusion 1 week after shock wave lithotripsy compared to before and 2 to 4 hours after lithotripsy (66% vs 71% and 72% of the aortic blood flow, respectively, p <0.05). At 1-week followup 39 unobstructed renal units (65%) showed no significant difference in renal perfusion at any time while 21 (35%) obstructed renal units showed a significant decrease in renal perfusion compared to before and 2 to 4 hours after lithotripsy (63% vs 76% and 75%, p = 0.003 and 0.005, respectively). Hematomas were observed in 7 cases (12%) 2 to 4 hours after lithotripsy, of which 5 were subcapsular and 2 were intrarenal. Three subcapsular hematomas resolved after 1 week. Localized loss of corticomedullary differentiation was observed in 2 patients (3.3%) with intrarenal hematoma 2 to 4 hours after treatment. Generalized loss of corticomedullary differentiation was observed 1 week after lithotripsy in 5 cases (8.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Shock wave lithotripsy alone induces minimal, reversible acute renal morphological changes and does not induce significant changes in renal perfusion. Posttreatment obstruction has a major effect on renal perfusion on the treated side and must be managed urgently.

Simultaneous vs staged treatment of urolithiasis in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy

AIM: To assess the outcomes of men treated for urolithiasis at the time of radical prostatectomy.

METHODS: From 1991 to 2010, 22 patients were retrospectively identified who were treated simultaneously (n = 10) at radical prostatectomy, or (n = 12) within 120 d prior to prostatectomy, for urolithiasis. Clinical characteristics were reviewed including: type of prostatectomy and stone surgery, location and amount of stone burden, perioperative change in hemoglobin and creatinine, stent frequency, total hospital d, stone-free rates, additional stone procedures and complications. Long-term functional outcomes including stress urinary incontinence and bladder neck contracture were reported. Differences between cohorts (simultaneous vs staged treatment) were assessed.

RESULTS: Among men undergoing radical prostatectomy, primary stone procedures included 12 ureteroscopy, 6 shock wave lithotripsy, 2 open nephrolithotomy and 2 percutaneous nephrolithotomy. In staged shock wave lithotripsy there were 4 complications and 3 additional procedures vs 1 (P = 0.5) and 0 (P = 0.2) in the simultaneous cohort. Meanwhile in staged ureteroscopy there were 5 complications and 1 additional procedure vs 1 (P = 0.2) and 1 (P = 0.9) in the simultaneous cohort. Additional procedures for residual stones was greater among patients with asymptomatic upper tract calculi 3 (60%) relative to patients with symptomatic stones 2 (13%; P = 0.02). Likewise, patients with proximal or multiple calculi had a greater total hospital days 5.5 vs 4.1 (P = 0.04), additional procedures 6 vs 0 (P = 0.04) and lower stone-free rates 39% vs 89% (P = 0.02) relative to men with distal stones. Finally, there was no difference in the incidence of bladder neck contracture (P = 0.4) or stress urinary incontinence (P = 0.7) between cohorts.

CONCLUSION: Ureteroscopic treatment of symptomatic distal urolithiasis at radical prostatectomy appears to be safe and efficacious with a low rate of adverse postoperative outcomes.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for management of residual stones after ureterolithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a retrospective study

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in managing residual stones after ureterolithotripsy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective study was carried out of 71 patients with proximal urinary tract stones (greater than 10 mm) who underwent ureterolithotripsy or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy at a single institution from 2009 to 2011. The 71 patients were divided into two groups: group I (n = 37) comprised patients who underwent ureterolithotripsy, and group II (n = 34) comprised patients who underwent mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Clinical characteristics, stone-free rates, stone demographics, and complications were evaluated.

Results

The overall stone-free rate was 90.1%. The stone-free rates in groups I and II were 97.3% and 82.4%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in the stone-free rates between groups I and II (P = 0.035). Neither serious intraoperative nor postoperative complications were observed. No significant difference in complications was observed between the two groups (P = 0.472).

Conclusions

The results of our study suggest that extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is an effective and safe auxiliary procedure for managing residual stones after primary endoscopic surgery. This procedure is associated with a satisfactory stone-free rate and a low complication rate, particularly for residual stones after ureteroscopic procedures.

Steinstrasse predictive factors and outcomes after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy

PURPOSE

Urinary stone disease is a common medical problem. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) has been applied with high success and low complication rates. Steinstrasse (SS) is a possible complication after SWL. The aim of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the factors and outcomes associated with SS after SWL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We have prospectively evaluated 265 SWL sessions (2005-2009). Two lithotriptors were used randomly: Siemens Lithostar and Dornier Compact S. All patients had imaging exams after 30 and 90 days or according to symptoms.

RESULTS

SS was observed in 14 (5.3%) out of 265 SWL procedures (n = 175 patients, 51.5% women/48.5% men, mean ± SD age = 46.3 ± 15.5 years). SS was more common after SWL for pelviureteral calculi rather than caliceal stones (p = 0.036). There was a trend toward more occurrences of SS after SWL for larger stone area (> 200 mm², p = 0.072). Preoperative ureteral stent didn't prevent SS. SWL machine, intensity, number of pulses and frequency were not associated with SS formation. Post-SWL pain, fever and gravel elimination were factors associated with SS (p = 0.021; p = 0.011; p = 0.078). When SS occurred, treatment modalities included Medical Expulsive Therapy (MET), ureteroscopy and SWL.

CONCLUSIONS

Steinstrasse is an uncommon event after SWL and seems to occur more frequently with larger pelviureteral stones. Impaction of stones is more frequent in the middle ureter. All patients should be followed after SWL, but SS should be specially suspected if there is macroscopic gravel elimination, flank pain and/or fever. When SS occurs, treatment should be promptly introduced, including medical expulsive therapy, surgical approach or SWL in selected cases. Further prospective studies are awaited to evaluated preventive measures for SS occurrence.

A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is considered a standard treatment for patients with upper-tract stones that are less than 10 mm in diameter, whereas stones that are larger than 20 mm are best managed by percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The management of stones between these sizes remains controversial. Our purpose was to review our contemporary series of SWL, ureteroscopy (URS), and PCNL outcomes for intermediate-sized upper tract calculi (100-300 mm(2)).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Analysis was restricted to those patients who were treated for a renal calculus that measured between 100 and 300 mm(2) during a 4-year span. Demographic, stone, patient, treatment, and follow-up data were collected from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

A total of 137 patients were referred with nonstaghorn calculi with an area between 100 and 300 mm(2). Fifty-three (38.7%) patients were treated with SWL, while 41 (29.9%) and 43 (31.4%) underwent ureteroscopy and PCNL, respectively. Mean stone area was higher in the PCNL group (P < 0.001), whereas stone density was higher for patients undergoing SWL (P = 0.002). Single treatment success rates were better for PCNL at 95.3%,vs 87.8% for ureteroscopy and 60.4% for SWL, P < 0.001. When allowing for two SWL treatments, the success rate improved to 79.2%, thus equalizing the success of the three treatment modalities (P = 0.66). Auxiliary treatments were more common after SWL (42.3%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

For intermediate-sized upper-tract stones, when allowing for up to two SWL treatments, there was no significant difference between treatment modalities. Thus, SWL is a reasonably successful treatment alternative for patients who are not fit for a general anesthetic or who prefer SWL over competing treatments, provided they accept a potentially higher number of treatments.