What is the best way to manage ureteric calculi in the time of COVID‐19? A comparison of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) in an Australian health‐care setting

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Prematurely falling out of favour? A 7 year retrospective study from an Australian high-volume centre

Objectives

The aim of this study is to audit 7 years of data with a 3 year follow up from a high-volume stone centre performing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) to evaluate efficacy in stone clearance compared to existing knowledge and understand reasons for this performance.

Methods

Patients who received ESWL treatment for renal or proximal ureteric stones at a single centre between January 2012 and January 2019 (to allow minimum 3 year follow up) were retrieved. A retrospective analysis was performed cross referencing for stone size, location, treatment and need for further procedures. Ethical approval was granted through Metro North HHS HREC, Queensland, Australia.

Results

A total of 1930 patients met inclusion criteria. Fifty-seven percent (n = 1100) underwent left-sided ESWL, compared to 43% (n = 830) on the right. Stone size and location were both statistically significant to treatment outcome. Small stones (<1 cm) had an overall clearance rate of 81.9%, medium stones (1-2 cm) had a clearance rate of 60.6% and stones (>2 cm) had a clearance rate of 31.3%. Small stones in an upper calyx had the highest clearance rate (87.5%, n = 120). Allowing for two procedures, 89% of stones were treated successfully.

Conclusion

ESWL remains a legitimate option for the treatment of small and medium sized renal calculi. ESWL stone clearance rates at our centre are higher than published elsewhere and serve as proof to its efficacy. X-ray imaging on the day of the procedure, heavy consultant input and frequent intra-operative imaging are cited as key reasons for success. Further research is warranted to elucidate factors affecting stone clearance rate and to enable more standardised outcomes. Further investment may be required into ESWL provisions in most Australian states and especially in Queensland to enable its continued use in contrast to developing endourological techniques.

Shock wave lithotripsy in the era of COVID-19

Objective

The objective of the study y was to evaluate factors which can improve shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) results to keep up with COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Between June 2020 and June 2021, patients with radio-opaque or faint radio-opaque upper urinary tract stones, stone attenuation value ≤1200 HU, and stones size <2.5 cm were treated by electrohydraulic SWL. Patients with respiratory tract symptoms elevated temperature, contact with COVID-19 patients, or positive COVID-19 swab 2 weeks preoperatively, skin-to-stone distance >11 cm, and body mass index >30 kg/m2 were excluded from the study. Patients were prospectively enrolled in SWL done at a rate of 40-50 SWs/min under combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy-guided, ramped into high power in the 1st 300 shocks. Success rate and complications were recorded.

Results

Five hundred and ninety patients completed the study. The success rate after 1st session was 408/590 patients (69.15%) which was augmented by 2nd session to reach 527/590 patients 89.3%. The success rate was 96.2% at 3 months postoperatively. Most complications were mild (Grade 1 or 2).

Conclusions

SWL results improved using slow rate high power from the start of the session under combined fluoroscopy and ultrasound guidance. SWL may be a preferred option during a pandemic.

Unplanned 120-Day ED Visits and Readmission Rates Following Common Stone Procedures

OBJECTIVE

To quantify emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions (HA) after common urologic stone procedures including ureteroscopy (URS), shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCL) which are a concern of payors, providers, and patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using claims data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplement databases. Adults with a urologic stone diagnosis and no history of stone procedure in prior 12 months who underwent stone procedures between 2012 and 2017 were included. All-cause ED visits and HA were evaluated during 30, 60, 90, and 120-day periods following the index urologic stone procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 166,287 patients were included in the analytic cohort. For inpatient-indexed procedures, cumulative ED visits rates following stone procedure at 120 days was 18.8% for URS, 19.2% for SWL, and 23.6% for PCL. A similar trend was observed with ED visit rates, following outpatient indexed procedures at 120 days with a cumulative rate of 14.2% of SWL patients, 14.9% of URS patients, and 17.3% of PCL. A similar trend was found when examining HA. ED and HA rates increased steadily through the 120-day time period.

CONCLUSION

Rates of ED visits and HA following common stone procedures continue to rise at least up to 120 days following the index procedure whether in the outpatient or inpatient settings. While rates of unplanned care are similar for URS and SWL, patients undergoing PCL return to the hospital at higher rates.

Prospective comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in patients with non-lower pole kidney stones under the COVID-19 pandemic

Both shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) are recommended as the first choice for non-lower pole kidney stones. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost of SWL versus F-URS in patients with solitary non-lower pole kidney stones ≤ 20 mm under the COVID-19 pandemic. This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or F-URS) for non-lower pole kidney stones were enrolled in this study. The stone-free rate (SFR), retreatment rate, complications, and cost were recorded. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed. A total of 699 patients were finally included, of which 81.3% (568) were treated with SWL and 18.7% (131) underwent F-URS. After PSM, SWL showed equivalent SFR (87.9% vs. 91.1%, P = 0.323), retreatment rate (8.6% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.169), and adjunctive procedure (2.6% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.385) compared with F-URS. Complications were scarce and also comparable between SWL and F-URS (6.0% vs 7.7%, P > 0.05), while the incidence of ureteral perforation was higher in the F-URS group compared with the SWL group (1.5% vs 0%, P = 0.008). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (1200 vs 30,083, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the F-URS group. This prospective cohort demonstrated that SWL had equivalent efficacy with more safety and cost benefits than F-URS in treating patients with solitary non-lower pole kidney stones ≤ 20 mm. During the COVID-19 pandemic, SWL may have benefits in preserving hospital resources and limiting opportunity for virus transmission, compared to URS. These findings may guide clinical practice.