Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: What is new?

Is there a place for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the endoscopic era?

This retrospective study aimed to evaluate whether there was still a place for ESWL therapy in the endourological era. From 1988 to 2018, ESWL therapy was performed with 3 successive types of lithotripters in our hospital. From 1988 to 1998, the electrohydraulic lithotripter NS-15 was used, and the electromagnetic lithotripter HK-V was put to use in 1999. Since 2010, the electromagnetic lithotripter HK-Vm has been used. Over the 30-year period, 16,969 urolithiasis patients underwent ESWL therapy, including 124 paediatric cases and 178 special cases. The stone clearance rate (SCR) and postoperative complications in the 3 lithotripter groups were recorded and analysed. The SCR was estimated by ultrasonography or plain X-ray, while the complications were recorded by the modified Clavien grading system. The primary stone clearance rate (pSCR) of ureteral and renal stones was significantly improved in the HK-Vm group compared with the NS-15 and HK-V groups. The final stone clearance rate (fSCR) of lower calyx stones was considerably higher in the HK-Vm group (55.9%) than in the NS-15 (41.1%) and HK-V (44.1%) groups. Most complications were grade I and II, while the incidence of grade III and above complications was less than 3%. Additionally, the fSCR in paediatric and special cases ranged from 66.5% to 83.5%, with no record of severe complications. As our data showed, ESWL was effective and safe for most urolithiasis patients, including paediatric patients and special cases. Therefore, ESWL is still the major treatment option in the current endourological era.

Efficacy of Eutectic Mixture of Local Anesthetics on Pain Control During Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The efficacy of a eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) for pain control in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of EMLA cream on pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Material/Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant randomized controlled trials that compared the pain control efficacies of EMLA vs. placebo.

Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions: Randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of EMLA with placebo cream for patients underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Two review authors extracted data independently using a designed data extraction form and risk of bias by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool.

Results

Nine studies, including 10 randomized controlled trials with 1167 patients, were eligible. The EMLA group experienced less pain (mean difference, −0.47; 95% confidence interval, −0.78 to −0.16; p=0.003) and shorter duration of lithotripsy (mean difference, −1.70, 95% confidence interval: −2.31 to −1.10, p<0.0001) than the placebo group. There were no significant differences in the number of patients who needed extra intravenous medication (p=0.610), number of patients with insufficient extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy pain control (p=0.530), and number of patients with opioid adverse effects (p=0.320). Limitations: Long interval between the studies, different kinds of lithotripters.

Conclusions

EMLA can reduce pain during the ESWL procedure.

Obesity and Kidney Stone Procedures

Obesity is a chronic disease that has increased in prevalence in the United States and is a risk factor for the development of nephrolithiasis. As with other medical conditions, obesity should be considered when optimizing surgical management and choosing kidney stone procedures for patients. In this review, we outline the various procedures available for treating stone disease and discuss any discrepancies in outcomes or complications for the obese cohort.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy under intravenous sedation for treatment of urolithiasis

BACKGROUND

In contrast to treatment with oral or intramuscular analgesics, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (E.S.W.L.) can be performed with patients under sedation too. Besides the advantage of increased shock energy, patients tend to have more constant breathing excursions and are more idle during treatment, potentially increasing the stone-free ratio (S.F.R.) after treatment.

METHODS

This study presents the results of 310 patients who underwent 400 E.S.W.L. procedures under sedation, with a stationary lithotripter.

RESULTS

After one procedure, the S.F.R. was 54.8% (170/310). A second treatment was successful in 42.1% (32/76), a third treatment in 21.4% (3/14). Therefore, 66.1% (205/310) of patients eventually became stone-free. Kidney stones were successfully treated in 65.4% (161/246), ureteral stones in 68.8% (44/64) of cases. Patients with stones ≤15 mm were successfully treated in 67.4% (194/288), patients with stones >15 mm in 50% (11/22) of cases. Considering each procedure individually, 45.3% (181/400) of procedures were successful after 3 weeks. Extending follow-up to 3 months is important, since 26.7% of stones (24/90) eventually still disappeared, increasing S.F.R. to 51.3% after one procedure. Complications occurred after 5.5% E.S.W.L.-procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

E.S.W.L. is a well-tolerated, non-invasive procedure that produces reasonable stone clearance of both upper and lower urinary tract calculi. Performing the procedure whilst patients are intravenously sedated results in an acceptable S.F.R. Strong selection based on unfavourable factors could increase the chance on successful treatment and spare patients a pointless procedure. However, considering E.S.W.L.'s elegant nature, sometimes a more tolerant approach seems justifiable.

A prospective randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to assess the effect of diuretics on shockwave lithotripsy of calculi

Objective

To assess the effect of diuretics with shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) on the treatment of renal and upper ureteric calculi.

Patients and methods

Adult patients with a solitary non-obstructive radio-opaque renal or upper ureteric calculus with normal renal function were included. They were prospectively randomised to receive either SWL with placebo or SWL with diuretics (40 mg parenteral furosemide) in a double-blind manner with a sample size of 48 patients in each arm. The primary outcomes were the SWL success and failure rates. The secondary outcomes were the number of shocks and sessions.

Results

Complete fragmentation was achieved in 89.6% of the patients in the furosemide arm as compared to 81.3% in the placebo arm. Clearance was achieved in 77.1% of the patients in the furosemide arm as compared to 70.8% in the placebo arm. The number of shocks and the number of sessions were higher in the placebo arm. These differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The use of diuretics along with SWL treatment of renal and upper ureteric calculi does not show a statistically significant improvement in fragmentation or clearance.