[Medical expulsive treatment for ureteral stones.]

INTRODUCTION

Medical Expulsive Treatment (MET) for ureteral stones has been questioned for the last few years.

OBJECTIVES

The main goal of our study is to define the indications of MET, the different drugs that are used and their effectiveness and to propose a follow-up strategy. Secondary objectives include the effectiveness of MET in some special subgroups such as pregnant women and children and to assess aspects of MET cost-effectiveness compared with other options for ureteral lithiasis treatment (ureterorenoscopy or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We have reviewed the most relevant clinical trials and meta-analysis evaluating the impact of the different drugs available for MET. For the research we used some keywords like "medical expulsive treatment/therapy", "ureteral lithiasis", "urolithiasis", "effectiveness", "alpha-blockers" and "calcium-antagonists". MEDLINE database was used for there search (using the portal web Pubmed).

RESULTS

Highest quality studies currently availables how significant methodological limitations leading to heterogeneous and restricted evidence, which is only applicable to patients and lithiasis with specific conditions. Nevertheless, in general terms, it seems that MET can play a certain role in the expulsion of lithiasis ≥ 5mm y ≤ 10 mm located in the distal ureter, although it has not been possible to demonstrate that any of the drugs used may have special superiority in terms of effectiveness. In pregnancy and children, the recommendations of MET are also irregular. Finally, MET seemsto be an alternative cost-effective compared to active options of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher quality clinical trials are needed to reliably advice MET. With the current evidence, it appears that MET can improve the expulsion of distal ureteral lithiasis ≥ 5 mm and ≤ 10 mm, even though we have not found differences between the drugs that are available for MET.

Comparative analysis of direct and indirect costs of two minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of renal/ureteral calculi smaller than 2 cm

OBJECTIVE

To perform a comparative analysis of indirect and direct costs of two minimally invasive techniques (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. ureteroscopy with holmium laser (URS/RIRS)) for the treatment of renal/ureteral calculi smaller than 2 cm.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective, comparative, non-randomized study of 84 patients treated for kidney stones smaller than 2 cm between January and December 2016. Of these, 38 (45.67%) were treated with ESWL (18 renal lithiasis and 20 ureteral lithiasis) and 46 (54.32%) with URS/RIRS (22 renal lithiasis and 24 ureteral lithiasis). A total of 19 (41.3%) patients in the URS/RIRS group and 15 (39.5%) patients in the ESWL group were actively working before treatment. The variables analyzed were sex, age, number and size of lithiasis, time (days) off from work due to treatment, estimate of indirect cost due to labor productivity loss and direct treatment costs including follow-up (total number of procedures, ancillary care, visits and diagnostic tests). The 2015 Wage Structure Survey (INE) was used to estimate the indirect cost. In addition, the «Work Productivity and Activity Impairment» (WPAI) questionnaire was also used to determine the level of perceived productivity loss.

RESULTS

The mean number of sessions until lithiasis resolution was achieved was 2.57 for the ESWL group and 1.04 for the URS. The mean number of days off from work in the URS group was 7.16 days and 3.18 (p = 0.034) in the ESWL group. The total indirect costs resulting from productivity loss were EUR 621.55 and EUR 276.05 for the URS and ESWL, respectively. Direct costs in the ESWL group were EUR 1,382.9 and EUR 2,317.71 in the URS group. The level of work impairment perceived by patients undergoing URS was 18.88% and 21.33% in the ESWL group. The degree of impairment for performing activities of daily living was 24.44% in the URS and 15% in ESWL.

CONCLUSIONS

The ESWL technique requires a higher number of sessions for the resolution of kidney stones under 2 cm, but it has a lower impact on total costs and on the perceived degree of affectation.

[Treatment of uretero-renal stones with shock wave lithotripsy. Results and complications with the dornier gemini emse 220f-XXP.]

OBJECTIVES

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is a minimally invasive therapeutic option for the treatment of renal-ureteral lithiasis. The aim of this study was to analyze the results and complications of shock wave extracorporeal lithotripsy treatment with the Dornier Gemini® Generator EMSE 220f-XXP device in patients with renal and ureteral lithiasis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study including 377 patients with renal or ureteral lithiasis with indication for treatment with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. The following variables were analyzed, age, sex, body mass index, lithiasis size, lithiasis location, presence of urinary diversion, number of lithotripsy sessions, number of shock waves, fluoroscopy time, wave energy, applied focal energy coefficient, efficiency coefficient, lithiasic fragmentation, lithiasic clearance, residual lithiasis, presence of lithiasis and complications. The results were analyzed with SPSS 17.0 considering statistical significance p≤0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 377 patients, 213 were men and 164 women, with a mean age of 51.28 ± 12.77 years. The mean size of the stones in maximum diameter was 11.77 ± 6.13 mm. Lithiasis fragmentation occurred in 81.9% of cases, with a percentage of residual lithiasis after the first session of 58.7% and a total or partial expulsion rate of lithiasis fragments of 68.3%, with global success at the end of sessions of lithotripsy of 69.8%. The overall Efficiency Ratio was 0.42, higher in upper calyx 0.51 and lower in medium calyx 0.35, with significant differences (p<0.05). The only differences were found in relation to the success of lithotripsy treatment (75% versus 64.6%, p=0.02), according to lithiasis size (≤10 mm maximum diameter in comparison to >10 mm). In patients with a DJ catheter there is a higher percentage of residual lithiasis (p=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with extracorporeal lithotripsy in small lithiasis and in well-selected patients obtains good results with a low rate of complications regardless of sex and body mass index.