Treatment of mid- and lower ureteric calculi: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy vs laser ureteroscopy. A comparison of costs, morbidity and effectiveness

Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 632 patients

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been widely used for pain control in musculoskeletal disorders. Whether ESWT can relieve chronic low back pain (CLBP) and improve lumbar function is still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant studies to comprehensively analyse and determine the efficacy and safety of ESWT for chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Four databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ESWT for CLBP. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to Cochrane systematic review criteria, relevant data were extracted, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcomes were pain intensity, disability status, and mental health. The data were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. If I² ≥ 50%, a random effects model was applied; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 632 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The ESWT group reported significantly more pain relief than the control group at 4 weeks (WMD =  - 1.04; 95% CI =  - 1.44 to - 0.65; P < 0.001) and 12 weeks (WMD =  - 0.85; 95% CI =  - 1.30 to - 0.41; P < 0.001). Regarding the dysfunction index, ESWT led to significant improvement in lumbar dysfunction compared with the control group at 4 weeks (WMD =  - 4.22; 95% CI =  - 7.55 to - 0.89; P < 0.001) and 12 weeks (WMD =  - 4.51; 95% CI =  - 8.58 to - 0.44; P = 0.03). For mental health, there was no significant difference between the ESWT group and the control group after 4 weeks of intervention (SMD = 1.17; 95% CI =  - 0.10 to 2.45; P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ESWT provided better pain relief and improved lumbar dysfunction compared with the other interventions included, and no serious adverse effects were found. There was no significant effect of ESWT on the mental health of patients, but we hope to obtain more RCTs for further analysis in the future. Based on the pooled results, we suggest that ESWT is effective and safe for treating chronic low back pain.

Evaluation of the relation between size of stone and its attenuation measured by Hounsfield units and the total laser energy required to fragment it

BACKGROUND

Anticipating the total laser energy (TLE) of Holmium YAG laser required for ureteroscopic (URS) lithotripsy is essential to guide urologists in selecting the optimal fiber size. This study aimed at evaluating the relationship between stone size and stone attenuation measured by HU as predictors for the TLE during the procedure.

METHODS

We conducted an observational prospective cohort study of patients undergoing URS lithotripsy at the Urology department of Ain Shams University Hospitals from September 2018 to September 2019 with the use of a holmium YAG laser as the lithotripsy method. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, stone location, stone size, stone attenuation measured by HU from the non-contrast CT, TLE, and procedure time were recorded. Data were analyzed using Jamovi software (version 2.0 for macOS).

RESULTS

Forty patients were included in the study (22 males and 18 females) with a mean age of 57.8 years. The mean stone size was 9.8 mm³, the mean HU was 858.8 units, and the mean TLE was 3.5 KJ. Both stone size and stone attenuation measured by HU were positively correlated with TLE (r = 0.81 and 0.84, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). Further, regression analysis showed that both variables could significantly predict the TLE (ß = 0.001 and 0.71, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Both stone attenuation, as measured by HU, and stone size positively correlate with TLE required for URS lithotripsy. Therefore, both HU and stone size can predict the TLE, which will be helpful to guide the urologist in selecting the optimal fiber size for the procedure.

The Efficacy of Mirabegron in Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of mirabegron (50 mg daily) as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones in adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to July 2021 to collect the clinical trials. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of four studies were included, involving 398 patients: 197 patients in mirabegron group and 201 patients in control group. The meta-analysis showed that the stone expulsion rate was higher in the mirabegron group than in the control group (OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.33 to 3.40; p=0.002). Subgroup analysis identified that the stone expulsion rate of patients with stone size <5/6 mm was significantly higher than that of patients with stone size ≥5/6 mm (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.72; p=0.006). But no significant difference was identified between the mirabegron group and the control group for the stone expulsion interval (MD: -1.16, 95% CI: -3.56 to 1.24; p=0.35). In terms of pain episodes, the mirabegron group was significantly lower than that of the control group (MD: -0.34, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.19; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The medical expulsive therapy with mirabegron had a significant effect in improving the stone expulsion rate for patients with ureteral stones, especially in those whose stone size <5/6 mm. Mirabegron had no effect on the stone expulsion interval but did decrease the pain episodes.

Can stone migration be predicted preoperatively in ureteroscopic lithotripsy?

OBJECTIVE

In our study, we aimed to evaluate the parameters that are effective in predicting the possibility of stone migration during ureteroscopic lithotripsy.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We divided our patients two group whom we applied ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Patients who migrated stones during ureteroscopic manipulation to the 1st group, and the patients who did not migrate stones to the second group were included. We measured the proximal ureter diameters of the patients in both groups on their computed tomography. We compared these values statistically. In addition, we determined a cut-off value for the ureter diameter to predict the possibility of stone migration.

RESULT

Especially, ureter diameters of patients with middle and lower ureter stones showed significant differences between groups. Also, stone sizes differed significantly between groups.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that the possibility of stone migration is high in patients with a ureter diameter higher than 7.45 mm in the middle and lower ureteric stones. Also, we believe that stone diameter and the surgeon's experience are effective factors in stone migration.

The effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of kidney stones: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) has gained worldwide popularity as one of the most commonly used minimally invasive management of urinary tract stones. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESWL for patients with kidney stones (KS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This protocol established in this study has been reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Knowledge Network Database (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wan Fang Database were searched for case-control studies in ESWL treating patients with KS until July 1, 2020. We will use a combination of Medical Subject Heading and free-text terms with various synonyms to search based on the Eligibility criteria. Two investigators independently reviewed the included studies and extracted relevant data. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as effect estimate. I test, substantial heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias assessment will be performed accordingly. Stata 14.0 and Review Manger 5.3 are used for a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSION

The results of this review will be widely disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. This evidence may also provide helpful evidence of the efficacy and safety of ESWL treating patients with KS.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019157243.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteric stones: which is the ideal approach?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of different approaches using ESWL for management of distal ureteric stone in an attempt to select the ideal one.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective randomized single-center study conducted on patients with lower third single radiopaque ureteric stone with size less than 15 mm. Patients were randomized into three groups, group A: Supine transgluteal, group B: Modified prone and group C: Prone position (80 patients each). The success of the procedure was assessed by NCCT and is defined as complete stone removal or had only clinically insignificant fragments (< 3 mm) for a maximum of three sessions. The success rate, rate of complications, pain intensity by visual pain scale and patients' satisfaction rate were compared among the three study groups.

RESULTS

Data of 240 patients were analyzed (80 in each group). Overall, no significant difference has been observed among all groups regarding demographic data, stone and treatment characteristics. The overall success rates for treatment after the last session were 86.3%, 65% and 62.5% in the three study groups, respectively, with a statistically significant difference for group A. Regarding pain perception and complication rate, all groups were comparable. Patient satisfaction is significantly better in group A versus the other two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study has confirmed better efficacy profile and patients' satisfaction rate of ESWL in the supine position (transgluteal approach) than other different known approaches for the treatment of distal ureteral stones.

Efficacy of mirabegron in medical expulsive therapy

To show the efficacy of mirabegron for medical expulsive treatment, in patients had intramural located distal ureteral stone. A 80 patients had intramural ureteral stone were assessed retrospectively between April 2017 and January 2018. Mirabegron 50 mg/day + diclofenac 100 mg/day (group 1, n = 40), and only diclofenac 100 mg/day (group 2, n = 40) were administered to patients, consecutively. Age, gender, stone size, laterality, and severity of hydronephrosis were recorded. Spontaneous stone expulsion rates (SER), stone expulsion time, and the number of daily colic episodes were evaluated. In the group 1, one (2.5%) patient was excluded due to nasopharyngitis, and one (2.5%) patient was excluded due to 5 mmHg systolic blood pressure increase. In addition, four (10%) patients in group 1, and six (15%) patients in group 2, who did not attend follow-up examinations, were excluded from the study. There was not any statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, gender, stone location, severity of hydronephrosis, stone size (p = 0.736, p = 0.310, p = 0.467, p = 0.801, p = 0.761, consecutively). Spontaneous expulsion ratios were calculated as 73.52% in group 1, and 47.05% in group 2 (p = 0.026). However, there was not any statistically significant difference in terms of stone expulsion time (p = 0.979). SER for patients had ≤ 6 mm stones was higher in group 1 (87.5 vs 52.49%, p = 0.031). In addition, group 2 patients had more pain episodes (1.02 ± 0.52 vs. 1.29 ± 0.57, p = 0.049). In the current study, mirabegron has been shown to be an efficient, safe and a new treatment modality, with lower side effect profile for the intramural located distal ureteral stones.

Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

A rising incidence of kidney stone disease has led to an increase in ureteroscopy (URS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Our aim was to compare the cost of URS and SWL for treatment of stones.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Cochrane and PRISMA standards was conducted for all studies reporting on comparative cost of treatment between URS and SWL. The cost calculation was based on factual data presented in the individual studies as reported by the authors. English language articles from January 2001 to December 2017 using Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library and Google Scholar were selected. Our study was registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews)—registration number CRD 42017080350.

Results

A total of 12 studies involving 2012 patients (SWL-1243, URS-769) were included after initial identification and screening of 725 studies with further assessment of 27 papers. The mean stone size was 10 and 11 mm for SWL and URS, respectively, with stone location in the proximal ureter (n = 8 studies), distal ureter (n = 1), all locations in the ureter (n = 1) and in the kidney (n = 2). Stone free rates (84 vs. 60%) were favourable for URS compared to SWL (p < 0.001). Complication rates (23 vs. 30%) were non-significantly in favor of SWL (p = 0.11) whereas re-treatment rates (11 vs. 27%) were non-significantly in favor of URS (p = 0.29). Mean overall cost was significantly lower for URS ($2801) compared to SWL ($3627) (p = 0.03). The included studies had high risk of bias overall. On sub-analysis, URS was significantly cost-effective for both stones  < 10 and  ≥ 10 mm and for proximal ureteric stones.

Conclusion

There is limited evidence to suggest that URS is less expensive than SWL. However, due to lack of standardization, studies seem to be contradictory and further randomized studies are needed to address this issue.

Estimating the nationwide, hospital based economic impact of pediatric urolithiasis

PURPOSE

The incidence of urolithiasis is increasing in children and adolescents but the economic impact of this problem is unclear. We examined 2 large databases to estimate the nationwide economic impact of pediatric urolithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the 2009 NEDS and KID, used ICD-9-CM codes to identify children 18 years or younger diagnosed with urolithiasis and abstracted demographic and charge data from each database.

RESULTS

We identified 7,348 weighted inpatient discharges in KID and 33,038 emergency department weighted encounters in NEDS. Of the patients 32% and 36% were male, respectively. Inpatients were younger than those who presented to the ED (mean age 13.9 vs 15.7 years). Most patients had private insurance (52.9% to 57.2%) and the South was the most common geographic region (39.5% to 44.4%). The most common procedures were ureteral stent placement in 20.4% to 24.1% of cases, followed by ureteroscopy in 3.8% to 4.4%. Median charges per admission were $13,922 for a weighted total of $229 million per year. Median emergency department charges were $3,991 per encounter for a weighted total of $146 million per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Each day in 2009 in the United States an estimated 20 children were hospitalized and 91 were treated in the emergency department for upper tract stones. A conservative estimate of 2009 annual charges related to pediatric urolithiasis in the United States is at least $375 million. This is likely a significant underestimate of the true economic burden of pediatric urolithiasis because it accounts for neither outpatient management nor indirect costs such as caregiver time away from work.

Management of lower ureteric stones: a prospective study

Objective

To discuss the current concepts in lower ureteric stone management.

Material and methods

Between October 2008 and November 2010, 190 patients of both sexes and of different age groups with lower ureteric stones, underwent in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (48 cases), ureterorenoscopy (URS) (120 cases) and open stone surgery (OSS) (22 cases).

The patients’ clinical and radiological findings, as well as stone characteristics, were reviewed and correlated with the stone–free status.

Results

In the ESWL group, the operative time was 43.13 +22.5 min; the average number of sessions/patients was 1.5 sessions; the average number of SW/patients was 4500 SW/patients; the average energy was 16.5 kV; the average stone burden was 7.8/mm; the overall stone–free rate was 75% (36/48); and the average radiation exposure time was 3.5 min.

In the URS group, the operative time was 49.21 +16.09 min; the average stone burden was 10.81mm; the overall stone–free rate was 97.5% (117/120); the average hospital stay was 3.99 days; and the average radiation exposure time was 0.75 min.

In the OSS group, the operative time was 112.38 +37.1 min; the overall stone–free rate was 100% (22/22); and the average hospital stay was 9.74 days.

Conclusion

In the management of patients with lower ureteral stones, URS, SWL and OSS were considered acceptable treatment options.

This recommendation was based on the stone–free results, morbidity and retreatment rates for each therapy.

Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones

BACKGROUND

Urinary stone disease is one of the most common reasons for patients visiting a urology practice, affecting about 5% to 10% of the population. Annual costs for stone disease have rapidly increased over the years and most patients with ureteral colic or other symptoms seek medical care. Stone size and location are important predictors of stone passage. In most cases medical expulsive therapy is an appropriate treatment modality and most studies have been performed with alpha-blockers. Alpha-blockers tend to decrease intra-ureteral pressure and increase fluid passage which might increase stone passage. Faster stone expulsion will decrease the rate of complications, the need for invasive interventions and eventually decrease healthcare costs. A study on the effect of alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy in ureteral stones is therefore warranted.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to answer the following question: does medical treatment with alpha-blockers compared to other pharmacotherapy or placebo impact on stone clearance rate, in adult patients presenting with symptoms of ureteral stones less than 10 mm confirmed by imaging? Other clinically relevant outcomes such as stone expulsion time, hospitalisation, pain scores, analgesic use and adverse effects have also been explored.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 9 July 2012 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, handsearching conference proceedings, and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing alpha-blockers with other pharmacotherapy or placebo on ureteral stone passage in adult patients were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Reporting bias was investigated using funnel plots. Subgroup analysis was used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed removing studies of poor methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two studies (5864 participants) were included. The stone-free rates were significantly higher in the alpha-blocker group (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.64) when compared to standard therapy. Stone expulsion time was 2.91 days shorter with the use of alpha-blockers (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.00 to -1.81). Use of alpha-blockers reduced the number of pain episodes (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.01), the need for analgesic medication (diclofenac) (MD -38.17 mg, 95% CI -74.93 to -1.41) and hospitalisation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.97). Patients using alpha-blockers were more likely to experience adverse effects when compared to standard therapy (RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.45) or placebo (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.96). Most adverse effects were mild of origin and did not lead to cessation of therapy, and several studies reported no adverse events in either the treatment or control group.In 7/32 studies patients and doctors were both blinded. In the other studies blinding was not described in the methods or no blinding had taken place. Two studies described incomplete data and only one study showed a relatively high number of patients who withdrew from the study. These factors limited the methodological strength of the evidence found.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of alpha-blockers in patients with ureteral stones results in a higher stone-free rate and a shorter time to stone expulsion. Alpha-blockers should therefore be offered as part of medical expulsive therapy as one of the primary treatment modalities.

Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation for locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in older men in the United States (USA) and Western Europe. Androgen deprivation (AD) constitutes, in most cases, the first-line of treatment for these cases. The negative impact of CAD in quality of life, secondary to the adverse events of sustained hormone deprivation, plus the costs of this therapy, motivated the intermittent treatment approach. The objective of this study is to to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and adverse events profile of intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation for locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

METHODS

Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), time to progression (TTP) and adverse events. We performed a meta-analysis (MA) of the published data. The results were expressed as Hazard Ratio (HR) or Risk Ratio (RR), with their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI 95%).

RESULTS

The final analysis included 13 trials comprising 6,419 patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. TTP was similar in patients who received intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) or continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) (fixed effect: HR = 1.04; CI 95% = 0.96 to 1.14; p = 0.3). OS and CSS were also similar in patients treated with IAD or CAD (OS: fixed effect: HR = 1.02; CI 95% = 0.95 to 1.09; p = 0.56 and CSS: fixed effect: HR = 1.06; CI 95% = 0.96 to 1.18; p = 0.26).

CONCLUSION

Overall survival was similar between IAD and CAD in patients with locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Data on CSS are weak and the benefits of IAD on this outcome remain uncertain. Impact in QoL was similar for both groups, however, sexual activity scores were higher and the incidence of hot flushes was lower in patients treated with IAD.

Differences in ureteroscopic stone treatment and outcomes for distal, mid-, proximal, or multiple ureteral locations: the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society ureteroscopy global study

BACKGROUND

Ureteroscopy has traditionally been the preferred approach for treatment of distal and midureteral stones, with shock wave lithotripsy used for proximal ureteral stones.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the differences in the treatment and outcomes of ureteroscopic stones in different locations.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Prospective data were collected by the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society on consecutive patients treated with ureteroscopy at centres around the world over a 1-yr period.

INTERVENTION

Ureteroscopy was performed according to study protocol and local clinical practice guidelines.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Stone location, treatment details, postoperative outcomes, and complications were recorded. Pearson's chi-square analysis and analysis of variance were used to compare outcomes among the different stone locations.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Between January 2010 and October 2012, 9681 patients received ureteroscopy treatment for stones located in the proximal ureter (n=2656), midureter (n=1980), distal ureter (n=4479), or multiple locations (n=440); location in 126 patients was not specified. Semirigid ureteroscopy was predominantly used for all stone locations. Laser and pneumatic lithotripsy were used in the majority of cases. Stone-free rates were 94.2% for distal ureter locations, 89.4% for midureter locations, 84.5% for proximal ureter locations, and 76.6% for multiple locations. For the proximal ureter, failure and retreatment rates were significantly higher for semirigid ureteroscopy than for flexible ureteroscopy. A low incidence of intraoperative complications was reported (3.8-7.7%). Postoperative complications occurred in 2.5-4.6% of patients and varied according to location, with the highest incidence reported for multiple stone locations. Limitations include short-term follow-up and a nonuniform treatment approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Ureteroscopy for ureteral stones resulted in good stone-free rates with low morbidity.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This study shows that patients who have ureteral stones can be treated successfully with ureteroscopy with a low rate of complications for the patient.

The effect of tamsulosin, an alpha-1 receptor antagonist as a medical expelling agent in success rate of ureteroscopic lithotripsy

BACKGROUND

Tamsulosin is an α-1A-specific blocker which induces selective relaxation of ureteral smooth muscle with subsequent inhibition of ureteral spasms and dilatation of the ureteral lumen and facilitates stone expelling.

OBJECTIVES

In this study we aimed to assess the efficacy of tamsulosin for improving the success rate of ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) for lower ureteral stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a prospective study by a randomized controlled clinical trial, which was performed from June 2008 to December 2010, we enrolled one hundred and forty-two subjects and eventually 102 patients completed the clinical trial. All the patients underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy with the pneumatic wolf lithotripsy. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: the study group including 52 patients, received tamsulosin with our traditional treatment (hydration and analgesic when required), and the control group with 50 patients who received placebo with traditional treatment. The number of colic episodes, lower urinary tract symptoms, analgesic dosage, and days of spontaneous passage of the stones through the ureter were recorded in a diary after lithotripsy.

RESULTS

The results showed that tamsulosin treatment group had low expulsion time (P = 0.011), low urinary tract symptoms, least analgesic needs and low adverse effects, all with statistically significant differences comparable with the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of α-1A-specific blocker reduced analgesic dosage and colic episodes and rate of adverse effects after ureteroscopic lithotripsy of lower ureteral stones and decreased gravel expulsion time after URSL.

The efficacy of tamsulosin vs. nifedipine for the medical expulsive therapy of distal ureteric stones: A randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare, in a randomised clinical trial, the efficacy of tamsulosin and nifedipine as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureterolithiasis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 128 symptomatic patients with stones in the juxtavesical tract of the ureter were randomly divided into group 1 (64 patients) receiving oral nifedipine sustained-release 30 mg/day, and group 2 (64 patients) receiving tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day. Both groups received oral prednisolone 30 mg/day for 10 days and diclofenac 75 mg intramuscularly on demand. Patients were assessed by weekly ultrasonography with or with no abdominal computed tomography, during a follow-up of 4 weeks. The stone passage rate and time, analgesic use, hospitalisation and endoscopic interventions were evaluated. The results were analysed statistically using appropriate tests.

RESULTS

The stone expulsion rate was 55% for group 1 and 80% for group 2 (P = 0.004). The mean stone size was 8.59 and 8.85 mm in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The mean expulsion time was 23 days for group 1 and 9 days for group 2 (P < 0.001). The mean number of diclofenac injections was 1.19 for group 1 and 0.42 for group 2 (P < 0.001). Eleven patients in group 1 vs. two in group 2 were hospitalised (P = 0.001). Twenty-six patients in group 1 and 13 in group 2 underwent ureteroscopy (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical expulsive therapy with tamsulosin should be considered as a first-line treatment for index cases of distal ureterolithiasis with no complications. The use of tamsulosin provides better stone expulsion than does nifedipine.

Double J stent reduces the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of lumbar ureteral stones

Introduction

We evaluated the effect of the presence of a double J stent on the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of lumbar ureteral stones.

Material and methods

Between January 2007 and February 2012, we performed a retrospective cohort study. Forty–four patients were treated by ESWL for lumbar ureteral stones and included into two groups for the analysis: group 1, non–stented (n = 27) and group 2, stented patients (n = 17). Treatment efficacy was evaluated by abdominal X–ray or CT–scan at 1 month. Stone–free patients and those with a residual stone ≤4 mm were considered to be cured.

Results

Mean stone size and density in groups 1 and 2 were 8.2mm/831HU, and 9.7 mm/986HU respectively. Both groups were comparable for age, BMI, stone size and density, number, and power of ESWL shots given. The success rates in groups 1 and 2 where 81.5% and 47.1%, respectively (p = 0.017). There was no difference between the groups for stones measuring 8 mm or less (p = 0.574). For stones >8 mm, the success rates were respectively 76% and 22.2% for groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.030). Logistic regression analysis revealed a higher failure rate when a double J stent was associated with a stone >8 mm (p = 0.033).

Conclusions

The presence of a double J stent affects the efficacy of ESWL in the treatment of lumbar ureteral stones. This effect is significant for stones >8 mm. Ureteroscopy should be considered as the first–line treatment in such patients.

Retrograde endoscopic lithotripsy using the innovative nanosecond electropulse method

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study is to assess the safety and efficiency of a novel lithotripsy method for endoscopic treatment of urinary stones throughout the urinary tract via semi-rigid and flexible endoscopes. This new method is based on the transfer of nanosecond high voltage electric pulses to the stones through flexible probes of various sizes.

METHODS

The study involved 879 patients aged 19-88 with renal, ureter and bladder calculi. Gender distribution: 46.3% female and 53.7% male. The prospective single-arm study took place at three centers. The goal of the clinical study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel lithotripsy method. All treatments were performed retrograde transurethrally. A variety of probes were used for stone fragmentation at different locations. Auxiliary treatments and adverse events were recorded as per protocol. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software.

RESULTS

Nanosecond electropulse lithotripsy (NEPL) was found to be technically feasible for all patients with stones located in the kidney, UPJ, ureter and bladder. It requires only a few dozen pulses to disintegrate stones while causing only minor stone migration. The overall stone-free rate in the study was 96%. The average time required for executing the entire procedure was 45±28 min. The overwhelming majority of intraoperative complications occurred due to endoscopic manipulation when using a rigid ureterorenoscope and not due to lithotripsy impact.

CONCLUSIONS

NEPL is a new, efficient and safe method for urinary stone disintegration that can be used throughout the urinary tract using rigid and flexible endoscopes. Intraoperative complications of the NEPL procedure do not exceed the percentage of adverse effects observed in other lithotripsy methods. The main advantages of relatively low-cost NEPL are fast stone fragmentation requiring only a few dozen pulses to disintegrate stones, tissue safety and availability of highly flexible probes for treating stones in the lower pole through a flexible ureterorenoscope.

Fragmentation without extraction in ureteral stones: outcomes of 238 cases

We aimed to evaluate the success rates, auxiliary procedures and complications after ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) during which the fragments left in situ for spontaneous passage after complete disintegration into a acceptable (<4 mm) size. 238 patients with ureteral stones were treated with URS between 2005 and 2011, and disintegrated fragments (<4 mm) were left in situ for spontaneous passage. Patients were followed with radiography for 3 months and evaluated with respect to the success rates (stone-free), auxiliary procedures, complication rates and additional analgesic requirement. The median age was 42.2 ± 13.7 years, and overall stone size was 8.79 ± 2.94 mm. Significantly lower rate of stone-free status was achieved in proximal stones (p < 0.05). A second URS was necessary in 5% (n = 12) of the patients. Double-J catheter placement during initial URS did not cause any change in the rate of secondary URS (p = 0.620). Additional oral or intramuscular analgesia was required in 41% (n = 97) and 25% (n = 59) of the patients, respectively, after discharge. The overall stone-free rate was 95% and mean time to complete clearance was 5 days. Severe colic pain within 24 h was noted in 21 (9%), and transient hydro-ureteronephrosis in 31 (13%) patients, as minor complications. Leaving the fragments (<4 mm) in place for spontaneous passage following a successful disintegration in URS could be a reasonable approach with acceptable and comparable stone-free rates, and this approach appears to give chance of shortening the duration of operation and also avoiding from the potential morbidity of repeated manipulations during the both further disintegration and extraction.

Economic outcomes of treatment for ureteral and renal stones: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ureteral/renal stone treatment by comparing ureteroscopy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search to identify studies of treatment for adults with ureteral and renal stones that were published between 1995 and 2010. For inclusion in analysis studies had to provide the stone-free rate and the cost of at least 2 therapies.

RESULTS

Ten studies were identified, including 8 with an observational design and 2 that synthesized data using decision modeling techniques. Five of 6 studies, including 1 of 2 from the United States, compared ureteroscopy vs shock wave lithotripsy for proximal stones and showed a higher stone-free rate and lower cost for ureteroscopy. Four of the 5 studies, including the only American study, compared ureteroscopy vs shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones and also showed such an economically dominant result. Studies of shock wave lithotripsy vs percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopy vs percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones demonstrated higher cost and a higher stone-free rate for percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the great heterogeneity and limited quality of available cost-effectiveness evaluations most studies demonstrated that ureteroscopy was more favorable than shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones in stone-free rate and cost.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

BACKGROUND

Ureteral stones frequently cause renal colic, and if left untreated, can lead to obstructive uropathy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy, with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common interventions used to treat ureteral stones. ESWL treatment is less invasive than ureteroscopy, but has some limitations such as a high retreatment rate, and is not available in all centres. Recent advances in ureteroscopy have increased success rates and reduced complication rates.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the outcomes of ESWL or ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteric calculi.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings, all without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared ESWL with ureteroscopic retrieval of ureteric stones were included in this review. Study participants were adults with ureteric stones requiring intervention. Published and unpublished sources were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed study quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean differences (MD) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs (1205 patients) were included in the review. Stone-free rates were lower in patients who underwent ESWL (7 studies, 1205 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96) but re-treatment rates were lower in ureteroscopy patients (6 studies, 1049 participants: RR 6.18, 95% CI 3.68 to 10.38. ESWL-treated patients had less need for auxiliary treatment (5 studies, 751 participants: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.74; fewer complications (7 studies, 1205 participants: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.88); and shorter length of hospital stay (2 studies, 198 participants: MD -2.55 days, 95% CI -3.24 to -1.86).Three studies adequately described the randomisation sequence, three studies were unclear on how they randomised, while one study had a high risk of selection bias. All the studies had an unclear risk of performance bias and detection bias, while all had a low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias, or other sources of bias identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ESWL, ureteroscopic removal of ureteral stones achieves a greater stone-free state, but with a higher complication rate and longer hospital stay.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

BACKGROUND

Ureteral stones frequently cause renal colic, and if left untreated, can lead to obstructive uropathy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy, with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common interventions used to treat ureteral stones. ESWL treatment is less invasive than ureteroscopy, but has some limitations such as a high retreatment rate, and is not available in all centres. Recent advances in ureteroscopy have increased success rates and reduced complication rates.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the outcomes of ESWL or ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteric calculi.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings, all without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared ESWL with ureteroscopic retrieval of ureteric stones were included in this review. Study participants were adults with ureteric stones requiring intervention. Published and unpublished sources were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed study quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean differences (MD) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs (1205 patients) were included in the review. Stone-free rates were lower in patients who underwent ESWL (7 studies, 1205 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96) but re-treatment rates were lower in ureteroscopy patients (6 studies, 1049 participants: RR 6.18, 95% CI 3.68 to 10.38. ESWL-treated patients had less need for auxiliary treatment (5 studies, 751 participants: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.74; fewer complications (7 studies, 1205 participants: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.88); and shorter length of hospital stay (2 studies, 198 participants: MD -2.55 days, 95% CI -3.24 to -1.86).Three studies adequately described the randomisation sequence, three studies were unclear on how they randomised, while one study had a high risk of selection bias. All the studies had an unclear risk of performance bias and detection bias, while all had a low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias, or other sources of bias identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ESWL, ureteroscopic removal of ureteral stones achieves a greater stone-free state, but with a higher complication rate and longer hospital stay.

Value of focal applied energy quotient in treatment of ureteral lithiasis with shock waves

The treatment of ureteral lithiasis by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is progressively being abandoned owing to advances in endoscopic lithotripsy. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the causes as to why ESWL is less effective-with a measurable parameter: focal applied energy quotient (FAEQ) that allows us to apply an improvement project in ESWL results for ureteral lithiasis. A prospective observational cohort study with 3-year follow-up and enrollment period was done with three groups of cases. In Group A, 83 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by endoscopic lithotripsy using Holmiun:YAG laser. In Group B, 81 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by ESWL using Doli-S device (EMSE 220F-XXP). In Group C, 65 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by ESWL using Doli-S device (EMSE 220F-XXP) (FAEQ >10). Statistical study and calculation of RR, NNT, Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Student's t test were done. Efficiency quotient (EQ) and focal applied energy quotient [FAEQ = (radioscopy seconds/number of shock waves) × ESWL session J] were analyzed. From the results, the success rate of the treatment using Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy and ESWL is found to be 94 and 48%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Success rate of endoscopic laser lithotripsy for lumbar ureteral stones was 82% versus 57% of ESWL (p = 0.611). In Group B, FAEQ was 8.12. In Group C, success rate was 93.84% with FAEQ of 10.64%. When we compare results from endoscopic lithotripsy with Holmium:YAG laser in Group B with results from ESWL with FAEQ >10, we do not observe absolute benefit choosing one or the other. In conclusion, the application of ESWL with FAEQ >10, that is, improving radiologic focalization of the calculus and increasing the number of Joules/SW, makes possible a treatment as safe and equally efficient as Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in ureteral lithiasis less than 13 mm.

Emergency ureteroscopic removal of ureteral calculi after first colic attack: is there any advantage?

OBJECTIVE

To comparatively evaluate the efficacy of ureteroscopic stone treatment immediately after the first colic attack and in an electively planned manner.

METHODS

A total of 145 patients underwent semirigid ureteroscopic removal of obstructive ureteral calculi using 2 different approaches (group 1, 69 patients, and group 2, 76 patients). The 69 patients in group 1 were treated with appropriate medical therapy for a period of ≥7 days for colic pain and subsequently underwent either semirigid ureteroscopy or pneumatic lithotripsy in a planned manner. The 76 patients in group 2 underwent semirigid ureteroscopy after the first colic attack. The stone-free status, auxiliary procedures, and complications were evaluated between the 2 groups using the Mann-Whitney U test; for qualitative data, Fisher's exact test was used.

RESULTS

Of the 145 patients who underwent semirigid ureteroscopy, the mean stone size was 11.80±3.95 mm and 8.32±2.08 mm in the 2 groups. No patient experienced a major complication during or after the procedure. The stone-free rate was 87% and 90.7% in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The mean readmission rate to the emergency department for the management of a colic attack was 3.03±2.84 in group 1; no patient in group 2 required readmission.

CONCLUSION

Ureteroscopic stone removal immediately after the first colic attack in the cases of obstructive ureteral stones proved to be safe and effective. It has the main advantage of offering both immediate stone fragmentation and the relief of acute onset colic pain causing extreme discomfort.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of lower ureteric stones: Outcome and criteria for success

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for distal ureteric calculi (DUC) and to determine variables that could affect the outcome results.

Patients and methods

Between April 2004 and February 2008, 100 patients with a solitary DUC were treated with in situ ESWL using a lithotripter (Lithostar Plus, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). The outcome of treatment was evaluated after 3 months. The patients’ clinical and radiological findings, as well as stone characteristics, were reviewed and correlated with the stone-free rate (SFR).

Results

After in situ ESWL, 84 patients (84%) were stone-free (after one session in 57 and after two in 27). From a univariate analysis only three factors had a significant impact on the SFR, i.e. the body mass index (BMI), stone length and stone width. The SFR was significantly lower in obese patients than in normal and overweight patients (P = 0.019). Stone width ⩾8 mm was associated with a SFR of 64% (14/22), compared with 89.7% (70/78) for those with a stone width of <8 mm (P = 0.007). The SFR was 86.8% (66/76) for a stone length of ⩽10 mm and 71% (17/24) for a stone length of >10 mm (P = 0.016). On multivariate analysis, BMI, stone width and stone length maintained their statistical significance.

Conclusion

Primary in situ ESWL remains an effective and safe form of treatment for DUC. The length and transverse diameter of the stone, together with the BMI of the patient, were the only significant predictors of the overall success of ESWL.

Semirigid ureteroscopy in management of large proximal ureteral calculi: is there still a role in developing countries?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the outcome and complications of the use of semirigid ureteroscopy (URS) together with intracorporeal pneumatic lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteral calculi >10 mm in diameter.

METHODS

A total of 75 patients (41 women and 34 men), with a mean age of 48 years (range 25-60), underwent primary URS for solitary radiopaque proximal ureteral calculi 10-20 mm in diameter (average 13.1). Dilation of the intramural ureter was done in 60 cases (80% of patients), and intracorporeal lithotripsy was required in 56 (74.6%). Ureteral catheters were left for drainage in 60% of patients, 26.7% were left unstented, and only 13.3% required an indwelling stent.

RESULTS

Of the 75 stones, 60 (80%) were successfully cleared after a single endoscopic procedure. Our initial stone-free rate was 90.6% at 2 weeks after the primary endoscopic procedure and had reached 98.6% at 3 months. Antegrade URS for migrating stones was done successfully in 6 cases in a tubeless fashion, and open ureterolithotomy was required in 1 case. No major complications were encountered. The minor complications included only mild extravasation and self-limited postoperative fever and hematuria. The risk factors for URS failure included male gender, the severity of the hydronephrosis, the severity of impaction, and the occurrence of extravasation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study have shown that semirigid URS is a safe and successful alternative to open ureterolithotomy in the management of large proximal ureteral calculi in the absence of flexible instruments.

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy as first-line therapy for patients with single, distal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To compare extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) as first-line treatments for patients with distal ureteric stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 273 patients with single, monolateral, radiopaque, distal ureteric stones of 0.5-1.5 cm were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial. Patients were randomized to undergo ESWL (137) or URS (136). The electromagnetic Modulith SLX lithotripter (Storz Medical, Switzerland) was used for ESWL and a semi-rigid ureteroscope was used for URS. Patients in both groups were compared for overall stone-free rates (SFRs), re-treatment rates, need for auxiliary procedures and complication rates. A subgroup analysis was performed in both groups according to stone size of ≤1 cm and >1 cm.

RESULTS

Patients in the ESWL group achieved a 92.70% overall SFR with a 44.88% re-treatment rate and an 11.02% auxiliary procedure rate. Complications occurred in 15.32% of patients treated with ESWL. Patients in the URS group achieved a 94.85% overall SFR with a re-treatment rate of 7.75% and an auxiliary procedure rate of 18.60%. Complications occurred in 19.11% of patients treated with URS. In the ESWL group, the need for re-treatments and for auxiliary procedures as well as the incidence of complications was significantly higher in patients with stones of >1 cm. In patients with stones of ≤1 cm treated with ESWL the need for re-treatments and for auxiliary procedures as well as the incidence of complications was significantly lower than for those treated with URS.

CONCLUSION

In centres where both techniques are available, ESWL should be the preferred treatment for patients with single distal ureteric stones of ≤1 cm and URS should be reserved for patients with stones of >1 cm.

SWL is More Cost-Effective than Ureteroscopy and Holmium:YAG Laser Lithotripsy for Ureteric Stones: A Comparative Analysis for a Tertiary Referral Centre

Background:

To identify the most cost-effective treatment for ureteric stones ≤15 mm in our department, by using an economic model to compare the total cost of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) versus ureteroscopy with Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy (URSL).

Patients and methods:

Data for patients treated with the same lithotriptor were retrospectively analyzed. The financial department provided data about the cost of procedures. This model accepted a 100% stone-free rate for URSL in outpatients, and a 50% rate of insertion of a ureteric stent. The cost for each procedure to render a patient stone-free was estimated by the following equations: costSWL = cost(initial SWL session) + [cost(SWL session) × retreatment rate] + [cost(URSL) × SWL failure rate] + [cost(stent insertion and removal) × rate] + [cost(KUB film) × 4] costURSL = cost(URSL) + [cost(stent removal) × 50%] + [cost(KUB film) × 2]

Results:

Records of 228 patients with previously untreated solitary radiopaque ureteric stones ≤15 mm were reviewed. The total cost for SWL (cSWL) was £1491/patient, while the total cost for URSL (cURSL) was £2195/patient. The difference was highest in the upper ureter (over £1000), and lowest in the distal part (URSL about 40% more expensive). For lower ureteric stones >10 mm, SWL was over £500 more expensive than URSL.

Conclusion:

Using data from the department to calculate cost-effectiveness for ureteric stones ≤15 mm a difference in favour of SWL versus URSL was found. Uniform guidelines incorporating cost are impossible considering differences between countries; each centre should probably assess their data individually.

Does tamsulosin change the management of proximally located ureteral stones?

The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of an alpha-1 adrenergic receptor blocking agent on the spontaneous passage of proximal ureteral calculi < or =10 mm. 92 patients having single radio-opaque proximal ureteral stone < or =10 mm were randomized into two groups. Group 1 patients (n = 50) were followed with classical conservative approach and patients in Group 2 (n = 42) additionally received tamsulosin, 0.4 mg/day during 4 weeks follow-up. The stone passage rates, stone expulsion time, VAS score, change in colic episodes, and hospital re-admission rates for colicky pain were compared. The patients were furthermore stratified according to stone diameters <5 and 5-10 mm. The data of these subgroups were also compared. Stone expulsion rates showed statistically significant difference between tamsulosin receivers and non-receivers (35.7 vs 30%, p = 0.04). Time to stone expulsion period was also shortened in those receiving tamsulosin (8.4 +/- 3.3 vs 11.6 +/- 4.1 days, p = 0.015). Likewise, the mean VAS score and renal colic episodes during follow-up period were significantly diminished in Group 2 patients (4.5 +/- 2.3 vs 8.8 +/- 2.9, p < 0.01 and 66.6 vs 36%, p = 0.001, respectively). Among the stones <5 mm, tamsulosin receiving patients had higher spontaneous passage rate (71.4 vs 50%, p < 0.001). The prominent effect of tamsulosin on the 5-10 mm stones was the relocation of the stones to a more distal part of ureter (39.3 vs 18.7%, p = 0.001). Administration of tamsulosin in the medical management of proximal ureteral calculi can facilitate the spontaneous passage rate in the stone <5 mm and the relocation of the stones between 5 and 10 mm to more distal part of the ureter.

A prospective randomized study comparing shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a prospective randomized study comparing both techniques for the management of solitary radio-opaque upper ureteral stones < 2 cm in diameter. The ideal treatment for upper ureteral stones > 1 cm size remains to be determined with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) being acceptable options.

METHODS

A total of 200 patients were included in the study. They were randomized into 2 equal groups. Group A underwent in situ SWL as a primary therapy. Group B underwent URS, using semirigid URS with intracorporeal lithotripsy. Efficiency quotient (EQ), cost analysis, and predictors of failure were estimated for both techniques.

RESULTS

For stones of size > or = 1 cm, the initial stone-free rate for URS and SWL was 88% and 60%, respectively. The estimated EQ was 0.79 and 0.43 for both techniques respectively. For stones < 1 cm, the initial stone-free rate for URS and SWL was 100% and 80%, respectively. The estimated EQ was 0.88 and 0.70 for both techniques, respectively. The mean cumulative costs were significantly more in SWL group (P <.05). Predictors of URS failure included; male gender, failure to pass guidewire beyond the stone, and extravasation. Predictors of SWL failure included large stone size > 1 cm, calcium oxalate monohydrate stone, and higher degrees of hydronephrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

URS with intracorporeal lithotripsy is an acceptable treatment modality for all proximal ureteral calculi, particularly stones > 1 cm. SWL should remain the first-line therapy for proximal ureteral calculi < or = 1 cm because of the less invasive nature and lower anesthesia (i.v. sedation).

Pharmacology of stone disease

Kidney stone disease remains a major health and economic burden on the nation. It has been increasingly recognized that nephrolithiasis can be both a chronic or systemic illness. There have been major limitations in the development of new drugs for the prevention and management of this disease, largely due to our lack of understanding of the complex pathophysiologic mechanisms involving the interaction of three major target organs: the kidney, bone, and intestine. We also do not yet understand the molecular genetic basis of this polygenic disorder. These limitations are coupled with the incorrect perception that kidney stone disease is solely an acute illness, and the lack of reliable tests to assess outcome measures. All of these factors combined have diminished the willingness of the pharmaceutical industry to engage in the development of novel drugs.

Ureteroscopic management of lower ureteric calculi: a 15-year single-centre experience

OBJECTIVE

To review our 15-year experience with ureteroscopic treatment of distal ureteric calculi and to determine the impact of improved technology and techniques on the efficacy, success and complications of the procedure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 4512 patients who underwent 5133 ureteroscopic procedures for the treatment of distal ureteric calculi at our institution from January 1991 to December 2005. The patient and stone characteristics, treatment variables and clinical outcomes were assessed. Factors such as type of ureteroscope, procedure duration, procedure success, complication rate and hospital stay were evaluated. Data obtained from a cohort of patients that underwent the procedure from 1991 to 1995 (group 1) were statistical compared with those obtained from a cohort of patients from 1996 to 2005 (group 2). Logistic regression analysis was used to identify associated factors with the major complications of ureteroscopy.

RESULTS

Overall, the stone-free rate after the procedure was 94.6%, the mean (sd; range) operative duration was 43 (15.0; 25-120) min, the intraoperative complication rate was 6.67%, the postoperative complication rate was 9.9%, and the mean (sd) hospital stay was 1.7 (1.1) days. The clinical and radiological follow-up (mean 36.8 months) for 71.3% of eligible patients detected only 12 ureteric strictures (0.23%). On comparing group 1 with group 2, the overall success of ureteroscopic stone extraction improved from 85.7% to 97.3% (P < 0.001), significant ureteric perforation decreased from 3.3% to 0.5% (P = 0.05), ureteric avulsion decreased from 1.3 to 0.1% (P < 0.05), ureteric stricture decreased from 0.7% to 0.1% (P < 0.007), the mean (sd) procedure time significantly decreased from 75 (42.9) min to 36.5 (12.5) min (P < 0.001), and the mean hospital stay significantly decreased from 2.5 (1.6) days to 0.5 (1.2) days, with a trend toward outpatient treatment. Logistic regression analysis showed a significant association of the major ureteroscopic complications with increased operative duration, type of ureteroscope used, stone impaction, stone size and surgeon experience.

CONCLUSION

The present series shows the high success rate, with minor complications, that can be achieved with ureteroscopic treatment of distal ureteric calculi. Improvements in ureteroscope design, accessories, technique and experience have led to a significant increase in the success rate and decrease in the complication rate.

[Ostiolitholapaxy]

The authors developed a new, minimally invasive technique for the removal of impacted iuxtavesical ureteral stones, using nephroscope and a grasping forceps. They named this technique ostiolitholapaxy. The authors present their detailed technique and results. Between 1. 1. 1995 and 31. 12. 2006 48 operations were performed. In 41 cases the stones were removed successfully. In seven unsuccessful cases the stones were extracted by ureteroscopy. The authors worked up 41 successful cases presenting the steps and technical details of the procedure. Average stone size was 5,2 (3-12) mm. Male and female ratio was 23/18. In 19 patients local and in 22 patients spinal anaesthesia was performed. Among the patients who underwent local anaesthesia there were 13 (68,4%) female and 6 (31,6%) male patients. Average operating time was 8,5 (3,5-35) minutes. Mean follow-up time was 95,3 (2-143) months. The success rate of the procedure was 85,41%. There were no intraoperative complications. In the mentioned period no ureteral stricture and/or reflux-uropathy has developed. Due to the simplicity, efficacy of this technique and the fact that it can be performed even in local anaesthesia, this procedure can be useful in case of small symptomatic iuxtavesical stones as a quick and safe stone removal intervention.

Economics of stone management

Cost, in addition to efficacy and morbidity, has become an important factor in determining the best therapeutic modality for a variety of disease states. A comprehensive literature search finds that, in general, for staghorn calculi, percutaneous nephrostolithotomy is more cost-effective than shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for stones greater than 2 cm in any dimension, while SWL may be cost-effective for smaller stones. For ureteral stones, observation is the least costly treatment strategy. Among surgical options, ureteroscopy is less costly than SWL. For single and recurrent stone formers, medical prophylactic strategies involving drug therapy are more costly than conservative therapy involving dietary measures alone. However, drug strategies yield fewer stone recurrences.

A systematic review of medical therapy to facilitate passage of ureteral calculi

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Acute renal colic is a common presenting complaint to the emergency department. Recently, medical expulsive therapy using alpha-antagonists or calcium channel blockers has been shown to augment stone passage rates of moderately sized, distal, ureteral stones. Herein is a systematic evaluation of the use of medical expulsive therapy to facilitate ureteral stone expulsion.

METHODS

We searched the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Additional sources included key urologic journals and bibliographies of selected articles. We included studies that incorporated a randomized or controlled clinical trial design, patients older than 18 years, treatment in which an alpha-antagonist or calcium channel blocker was compared to a standard therapy group, and studies that reported stone expulsion rates. A random effects model was used to obtain summary risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for stone expulsion rate.

RESULTS

A pooled analysis of 16 studies using an alpha-antagonist and 9 studies using a calcium channel blocker suggested that the addition of these agents compared to standard therapy significantly improved spontaneous stone expulsion (alpha-antagonist RR 1.59; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.75; number needed to treat 3.3 [95% CI 2.1 to 4.5]; calcium channel blocker RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.68; number needed to treat 3.9 [95% CI 3.2 to 4.6]) in patients with distal ureteral stones. Subgroup analysis of trials using concomitant medications (ie, low-dose steroids, antibiotics, and elimination of trials using an anticholinergic agent) yielded a similar improvement in stone expulsion rate. Adverse effects were noted in 4% of patients receiving alpha-antagonist and in 15.2% of patients receiving calcium channel blockers.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that "medical expulsive therapy," using either alpha-antagonists or calcium channel blockers, augments the stone expulsion rate compared to standard therapy for moderately sized distal ureteral stones.