Comparison of Patient Satisfaction with Treatment Outcomes between Ureteroscopy and Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Stones

Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy protocol in the management of high attenuation value upper ureteric stones: A randomized comparative study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy protocol in the management of high attenuation value upper ureteric stones compared with slow-rate, power-ramping shock wave lithotripsy.

METHODS

This was a randomized trial enrolling patients with a single high attenuation value (≥1000 HU) upper ureteric stones between January 2019 and July 2019. Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy (54 patients) was applied at a rate of 30 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18-22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. Then, full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. Slow-rate, power-ramping shock wave lithotripsy (47 patients) was applied at a rate of 60 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 10 kV during the first 500 shock waves, then from 11 to 22 kV during the next 1000 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1500 shock waves. Up to three sessions were carried out with a follow up 3 months after the last session. The primary outcome was the stone-free rate. Perioperative data of the two protocols were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in preoperative data. The stone-free rate was significantly higher in ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy after single (92.6% vs 23.4%) and multiple (96.3% vs 63.8%) sessions. Most complications were mild, with no significant difference between both groups (9.3% vs 12.8%; P = 0.573). Logistic regression analysis identified ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy protocol as the only significant independent factor for the stone-free rate (odds ratio 12.589, P = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value upper ureteric stones is associated with a significantly higher stone-free rate, and with mild complications that are comparable to those of standard shock wave lithotripsy.

Miniature semi-rigid ureteroscopy with holmium-yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser vs shockwave lithotripsy in the management of upper urinary tract stones >1 cm in children

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of miniature semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) with holmium (Ho)-yttrium-aluminium-garnet (YAG) laser lithotripsy vs shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for treating upper urinary tract (UUT) calculi >1 cm in children.

Patients and methods

Children with unilateral single UUT ureteric stones of >1 cm were prospectively enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1, treated with SWL; and Group 2, treated with URS (6/7.5 F) and laser lithotripsy. The patients’ characteristics, stones demographics, operative time, adjunctive procedures, stone-free rate (SFR), re-treatment rate, and complications were statistically analysed and compared. Success was defined as stone-free status (no stone residual of ≥0.3 cm) at 1 month from the initial treatment without any auxiliary procedures.

Results

In all, 68 patients with UUT stones met our inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences between the two groups for patient or stone demographics. In Group 1, the SFR was 26/34 (76.4%) and in Group 2 it was 33/34 (97.1%) (P = 0.03). A total of 12 auxiliary procedures in Group 1 and two in Group 2 were needed to reach a 100% SFR (P = 0.014). There were no significant differences between the two groups for operative times, adjunctive procedures, number of complicated cases or complications of Grade ≥III (P = 0.65, P = 0.23, P = 0.77, and P = 0.62, respectively).

Conclusion

Miniature semi-rigid URS with Ho-YAG laser lithotripsy for UUT ureteric stones of >1 cm in children was more effective than SWL in terms of SFR and re-treatment rate, with no significant difference in the rate or grade of complications.

Abbreviations

EQ: efficiency quotient; KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SFR: stone-free rate; SWL: shockwave lithotripsy; URS: ureteroscopy; US: ultrasonography/ultrasound; URS: ureteroscopy; UUT: upper urinary tract; YAG: yttrium-aluminium-garnet

The Application of External Ureteral Catheters in Children With Acute Kidney Injury Caused by Ceftriaxone-Induced Urolithiasis

Objective: To evaluate our use of external ureteral catheters in children with acute kidney injury (AKI) resulting from ceftriaxone-induced urolithiasis. Methods: From July 2010 to June 2015, a series of 15 children, including 12 males and 3 females, were referred to our department. All of them were diagnosed of post-renal AKI and underwent emergent hospitalization. Evaluation of serum electrolytes, creatinine (Cr), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), complete blood count, and blood gas analysis were completed in each child both before they were admitted, and again after surgery. Bilateral externalized ureteral catheters were placed cystoscopically in each of these patients. The composition of collected calculi was analyzed by infrared spectrography. Results: Bilateral externalized ureteral catheters were placed successfully in all patients. There were no procedure-related complications. Two days after catheter placement, the levels of serum Cr and BUN had improved in all patients, and these levels were noted to be significantly lower than before catheterization (P < 0.001). Infrared spectrography demonstrated that the primary composition of all calculi collected was ceftriaxone. No recurrent AKI or renal deterioration was detected during the follow-up which ranged from 3 to 8 years. Conclusions: These results show that short-term external ureteral catheters can be effectively utilized in children with AKI caused by ceftriaxone-induced urolithiasis. We recommend this procedure as a viable replacement to indwelling stents in patients with bilateral ureteral stones.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for management of pediatric nephrolithiasis in upper urinary tract stones: multi-institutional outcomes of efficacy and morbidity

INTRODUCTION

As the incidence of pediatric nephrolithiasis rises, understanding the efficacy and morbidity of surgical treatment options is critical. Currently, there are limited comparative data assessing shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) outcomes in children.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare stone clearance, 30-day emergency department visits, and the number of general anesthetics required per stone treatment for both modalities.

STUDY DESIGN

A multi-institutional retrospective review of children presenting for either URS or SWL between 2000 and 2017 was performed. Stone clearance, need for retreatment, the number of anesthetics, as well as the number and reason for emergency room visit were captured and compared between groups. Multivariate statistical analysis accounting for age, stone location, stone diameter, pre-intervention stent, and provider volume was performed for adjusted analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 84 SWL and 175 URS procedures were included. Complete stone clearance and rates of residual stone fragments <4 mm after final procedure for SWL were 77.0% and 90.8% and for URS were 78.5% and 91.7%, respectively. Retreatment rates for both procedures were not significantly different (17.9% SWL vs. 18.9% URS, P = 0.85). Children who underwent SWL had lower rates of emergency room visits for infections (0% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.03) and flank pain (3.6% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.05) and required fewer general anesthetics per treatment (1.2 vs. 2.0, P < 0.01) than those who underwent URS (Figure).

DISCUSSION

Stone clearance after both the initial and final treatments and need for repeat interventions were similar between surgical modalities. However, SWL carries less morbidity than URS. Specifically, patients who underwent SWL experienced lower rates of ED visits for urinary tract infection and for flank pain, parallel to conclusions in current comparative literature. In addition, SWL requires less general anesthetics (2.0 vs. 1.2), secondary to lower rates of ureteral stent placement and removal. Data on the potential risk of general anesthetics to neurodevelopment support thoughtful utilization of these medications. Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature and the prolonged 20-year time period over which data were collected.

CONCLUSIONS

When adjusting for confounders, SWL and URS achieve similar stone clearance. In the setting of equivalent efficacy, considerations regarding necessity of repeat interventions, morbidity of anesthesia, and complications should be integrated into clinical practice.

Is semirigid ureteroscopy sufficient in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones? When is combined therapy with flexible ureteroscopy needed?

The goals of this study were to examine cases of proximal ureteral stones in which semirigid or flexible ureteroscopes alone were insufficient for endoscopic treatment, requiring the combination of both. A total of 137 patients were retrospectively evaluated. Holmium laser was used as the energy source for stone fragmentation. Each operation was begun with a 6/7.5 Fr semirigid ureteroscope (URS), and continued with a 7.5 Fr flexible URS in those procedures that failed to reach the stone or push-up. Double J stents were inserted into those patients in whom the flexible URS failed. Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) or a repeat ureteroscopy (after 2-4 weeks) was planned in those patients who were considered to be treated unsuccessfully. The demographic features of the patients, stone sizes, treatment outcomes, need for additional treatment, complications, and the results of the postoperative 1-month early follow-up were evaluated. The mean age of the patients (77 males and 60 females) was 38 ± 6.7 years old, the mean stone size was 12.3 ± 3.7 mm, and the number of patients with persistent hydronephrosis was 86 (62.8 %). A stone-free diagnosis was achieved in a total of 124 patients (90.5 %), using a semirigid URS in 80 patients and a flexible URS in 44 patients. Treatment using a flexible URS was administered in 38 patients (27.7 %) due to push-up, and in 6 patients (4.3 %) because of the failure to advance the semirigid URS into the ureter. The treatment failed in 13 patients (9.4 %) despite the use of both methods. Treatment using low-caliber semirigid ureteroscopy and a holmium laser is possible, regardless of the stone size, in female patients without hydronephrosis. However, the need for combined treatment with flexible ureteroscopy is increased in male patients with hydronephrosis.

Extracorporeal shock waves lithotripsy versus retrograde ureteroscopy: is radiation exposure a criterion when we choose which modern treatment to apply for ureteric stones?

The aim of this study is to compare two major urological procedures in terms of patient exposure to radiation. We evaluated 175 patients, that were subjected to retrograde ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock waves lithotripsy (ESWL) for lumbar or pelvic ureteral lithiasis, at two urological departments. The C-arm Siemens (produced in 2010 by Siemens AG, Germany) was used for ureteroscopy. The radiological devices of the lithotripters used in this study in the two clinical centers had similar characteristics. We evaluated patient exposure to ionizing radiation by using a relevant parameter, the air kerma-area product (PKA; all values in cGy cm(2)), calculated from the radiation dose values recorded by the fluoroscopy device. PKA depends on technical parameters that change due to anatomical characteristics of each case examined, such as body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and stone location. For the patients subjected to ESWL for lumbar ureteral lithiasis the mean of PKA (cGy cm(2)) was 509 (SD=180), while for those treated for pelvic ureteral lithiasis the mean of PKA was 342 (SD=201). In the URS group for lumbar ureteral lithiasis, the mean of PKA (cGy cm(2)) was 892 (SD=436), while for patients with pelvic ureteral lithiasis, the mean of PKA was 601 (SD=429). The patients treated by URS had higher exposure to ionizing radiation dose than patients treated by ESWL. The risk factors of higher radiation doses were obesity, exposure time, and localization of the stones.

Comparison of an Indwelling Period Following Ureteroscopic Removal of Stones between Double-J Stents and Open-Ended Catheters: A Prospective, Pilot, Randomized, Multicenter Study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether long-term, postoperative ureteral stenting is necessary after ureteroscopic removal of stones (URS) during an uncomplicated surgical procedure.

Materials and Methods

We prospectively examined 54 patients who underwent URS for lower ureteral stones from February 2010 to October 2010. Inclusion criteria were a stone less than 10 mm in diameter, absence of ureteral stricture, and absence of ureteral injury during surgery. We randomly placed 5 Fr. open-tip ureteral catheters in 26 patients and removed the Foley catheter at postoperative day 1. The remaining 28 patients received double-J stents that were removed at postoperative day 14 by cystoscopy under local anesthesia. All patients provided visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores at postoperative days 1, 7, and 14 and completed the storage categories of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at postoperative day 7.

Results

The VAS scores were not significantly different on postoperative day 1 but were significantly smaller in the 1-day ureteral catheter group at postoperative days 7 and 14 (p<0.01). All of the storage categories of the IPSS were significantly lower in the 1-day ureteral stent group (p<0.01). The ratio of patients who needed intravenous analgesics because of severe postoperative flank pain was not significantly different between the two groups (p=0.81). No patients experienced severe flank pain after postoperative day 2, and no patients in either group had any other complications.

Conclusions

One-day ureteral catheter placement after URS can reduce postoperative pain and did not cause specific complications compared with conventional double-J stent placement.