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

Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) in Patients With Infected Ureterohydronephrosis Due to Ureteral Stones Following Double-J Catheter Insertion

INTRODUCTION

Double-J ureteral catheters in patients with ureteral lithiasis undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) procedures reduce the efficacy of the procedure or have no effect on the stone-free rate. However, the effect of double-J catheters on the patients in whom they were inserted for infected hydronephrosis is not known. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the ESWL procedure in patients with ureteral lithiasis and double-J catheters previously inserted for infected hydronephrosis.

METHOD

We conducted a comparative case-control, match-paired study in a group of patients with ureteral lithiasis treated by ESWL from January 1, 2018, to March 1, 2023, who were divided into two groups according to the presence of the double-J catheter. For each patient with the double-J catheter from the study group, we selected one patient for the control group without the double-J catheter and matched them in terms of size, location of stones, and body mass index (BMI). We analyzed the stone-free rate and complications that occurred in the two groups.

RESULTS

Forty patients with ureteral lithiasis and a double-J catheter inserted for infected hydronephrosis were enrolled in the study group. The control group included 40 patients with ureteral stones without double-J catheters. The patients in the two groups were predominantly men with stones located in the lumbar region and on the right side and with a BMI between 25 and 30 kg/m2. The stones had an average size of 0.9+/-0.12mm and 0.89+/-0.15mm, respectively (p=0.624). There was no statistically significant difference in stone-free rate between the two groups after the first session of ESWL (47.5% vs. 52.5%, p=0.502), the second (70% vs. 75%, p = 0.616), and the third session (85% vs. 87.5%, p=0.761). The rate of complications was similar in both groups (7.5% vs. 5%, p=0.761).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of double-J catheters inserted in patients with ureteral stones who underwent ESWL for infected hydronephrosis does not affect the stone-free rate of the procedure or the complication rate. The procedure of ESWL in patients with ureteral lithiasis and double-J catheters inserted for infected hydronephrosis is a safe and efficient method that can be recommended as an initial treatment alongside retrograde ureteroscopy.

Predictors of success following extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy in a contemporary cohort

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to determine the predictors of success following extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in a contemporary cohort at a high-volume stone center.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review all patients who underwent an elective ESWL within our institution over a 24-month period (January 2014 to December 2015). Data on patient demographics, stone variables, and inpatient treatment outcomes were evaluated.The presence of residual stone fragments larger than 4 mm on follow-up imaging was considered to be treatment failure. Using this threshold, clinically relevant variables between the treatment success and failure groups were identified. Multivariable logistic regression analyses (MVA) of clinically relevant variables were used to determine the independent factors predicting ESWL success.

RESULTS

Of 446 study eligible patients, 421 patients had complete follow-up data and were included in the analysis. Treatment was successful in 72.2% of patients in this study. Stone size, number of shocks delivered, and maximum treatment intensity were statistically different in the two groups. In a MVA where stone size, location, density, presence of ureteric stent, skin-stone distance (SSD), number of shocks, and maximum shock intensity were included, only stone size of <10 mm (odds ratio [OR] 3.4 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.98-5.84]) and SSD <15 cm (OR: 0.133, [95% CI: 0.027-0.65]) were the independent predictor of ESWL success.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated "real world" outcomes with high-volume use of ESWL. In our experience that with diligent patient selection, ESWL remains an effective tool for the management of upper tract calculi.

Indications and contraindications for shock wave lithotripsy and how to improve outcomes

For over 35 years shock wave lithotripsy has proven to be an effective, safe and truly minimally invasive option for the treatment of nephrolithiasis. Various technical factors as well as patient selection can impact the success of the procedure. We used published work focusing on outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy, risk of complications, and strategies for improving stone fragmentation to create this review. Multiple patient and technical factors have been found to impact success of treatment. Skin to stone distance, stone density and composition, size and location of the stone within the urinary system all influence stone free rates. A slower rate with a gradual increasing voltage, precise targeting, proper coupling will improve stone fragmentation and decrease risk of complications. The selection of appropriate patients through a shared decision making process and attention to the technical factors that improve stone free rates is key to providing an effective treatment and patient satisfaction.

A stone pushed back to the collecting system - long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments

Introduction

Availability of flexible ureteroscopes is still limited in many countries and centers. Under such circumstances treating small stones pushed from the ureter to the kidney that pose a risk of symptomatic recurrence is controversial as it may require a number of surgical procedures to remove. The aim of this study was to assess the type and number of procedures used to treat stones relocated from the ureter to the collecting system in a high volume urological center with limited access to flexible instruments.

Materials and methods

Patients treated for ureteral stones in years 2013–2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All procedures performed after stone relocation were counted. Final stone status was determined by ultrasonography and radiography.

Results

Out of 75 patients with a stone relocated to the collecting system full follow-up was available for 66. In three patients (4%) the stone remained in the collecting system untreated. Seven patients (11%) passed their stones spontaneously. Active treatment was successful in 45 (68%), while it failed in 11 (17%) patients. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was used 132 times, semi-rigid ureteroscopy 21 times and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy 22 times – 175 procedures altogether (2.6 procedures/patient + accessory procedures such as JJ removal). Shockwave lithotripsy was effective in 7/41 patients, semi-rigid ureteroscopy in 18/21 and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in 22/22 patients.

Conclusions

Treating small stones relocated from the ureter to the collecting system in centers not equipped with flexible endoscopes is inefficient, time-consuming or too invasive. Cost-effectiveness analysis should follow this study to obtain evidence for public health payers to change their policies.

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.

Impact of ureteric stent on outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: A propensity score analysis

INTRODUCTION

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is one of the most frequently performed procedures in patients with urolithiasis. For ureter-localized stones, SWL is often preceded by a double J stent insertion. However, fear of serious complications, including sepsis associated with stents, is often expressed. The following study assessed the impact of stent insertions on the results of SWL in patients with ureteric stones.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study group consisted of 411 ureteric stone patients who were treated with SWL from January 2010 to December 2014. In 60 cases, treatment was preceded by ureteric stent insertion. A propensity scoring system was used to pair non-stented patients with the stented group. Success rates were assessed and compared using the chi-squared test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the influence of particular variables on the stone-free rate.

RESULTS

The overall success rate was 82.2%. After matching, the success rate of the stented group was not significantly different from the control group (85.0% vs. 83.3% respectively, p = 0.80). The mean number of sessions was higher in the stented group (1.88 per patient). Stones located in the lower part of the ureter have the greatest chance of being successfully treated.

CONCLUSIONS

The double J stent has no influence on the outcome of SWL treatment. In view of the greater likelihood of having additional sessions, this approach should be reserved for selected cases.

CUA Guideline: Management of ureteral calculi

The focus of this guideline is the management of ureteral stones. Specifically, the topics covered include: conservative management, medical expulsive therapy, active intervention with either shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or ureteroscopy (URS), factors affecting SWL treatment success, optimizing success, and special considerations (e.g., pregnancy, urinary diversion). By performing extensive literature reviews for each topic evaluated, we have generated an evidence-based consensus on the management of ureteral stones. The objective of this guideline is to help standardize the treatment of ureteral stones to optimize treatment outcomes.

Does ureteral stenting matter for stone size? A retrospectıve analyses of 1361 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients

Introduction

The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy of ureteral stents for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment of pelvis renalis stones and to compare the results and complications in stented and non-stented patients.

Material and methods

Between 1995 and 2011, 1361 patients with pelvis renalis stones were treated with SWL. Patients were subdivided into three groups according to stone burden: ≤1 cm² (group 1; n = 514), 1.1 to 2 cm² (group 2; n = 530) and >2 cm² (group 3; n = 317). Each group was divided into subgroups of patients who did and did not undergo ureteral stent implantation before SWL treatment. The efficacy of treatment was evaluated by determining the effectiveness quotient (EQ). Statistical analysis was performed by chi-square, Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results

Of the 514, 530 and 317 patients in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively, 30 (6%), 44 (8%) and 104 (33%) patients underwent auxiliary stent implantation. Steinstrasse rates did not differ significantly between stented and non-stented patients in each group. The EQ was calculated as 62%, 33% and 70% respectively in non-stented, stented and totally for group 1. This ratio calculated as 58%, 25% and 63% for group 2 and 62%, 26% and 47% for group 3. Stone-free rates were significantly higher for non-stented than for stented patients in groups 2 and 3.

Conclusions

Stone free rates are significantly higher in non-stented than in stented patients with pelvis renalis stones >1 cm², whereas steinstrasse rates are not affected.

Pain control using pethidine in combination with diazepam compared to diclofenac in combination with hyoscine-n-butyl bromide: in patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Introduction

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) remains the preferred least invasive treatment for urinary tract stones. The main purpose of this study was to compare two treatment modalities for pain control during the ESWL procedure.

Material and methods

From 2013 to 2014, 220 patients received ESWL for kidney stones. Before the procedure, the weight and height were measured to determine the body mass index (BMI); in addition, oxygen saturation and the pulse of the patients, as well as pain level were determined. The pain control provided included two different methods: diclofenac sodium plus hyoscine-N-butyl bromide in the first group and pethidine plus diazepam in the second group. The pain level of the patients was determined using two different scales: the Wong-Baker and the Visual Analogue scales (VAS). At the end of three sessions, all patients were evaluated for the stone fragmentation rate by plain abdominal X-ray, and the findings were recorded and analyzed.

Results

A total of 220 patients were enrolled in this study. There were 91 patients in the first group (diclofenac sodium + hyoscine-N-butyl bromide) (male/female: 63/28) and 129 (male/female: 83/46) patients in the second group (pethidine HCL +diazepam). The mean age with SD according to each group was 42.03 (±16.43) and 42.56 (±14.23), respectively (p = 0.8). With regard to pain scores (using the Wong-Baker and VAS scales), the responses were significantly lower in the second group (p <0.001).

Conclusions

Pethidine in combination with diazepam was superior to diclofenac and Hyoscine-N-butyl bromide for pain in patients undergoing ESWL.