Time to Stone Clearance for Ureteral Stones Treated with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Ureteral wall thickness is an independent parameter affecting the success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment in ureteral stones above the iliac crest

BACKGROUND

To investigate the relationship between ureteral wall thickness (UWT) and other variables of patients who underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the primary treatment of the ureteral stone above the iliac crest level.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 147 patients aged 18 years and older, who underwent SWL in our clinic between December 2016 and December 2019 for the treatment of ureteral stones above the iliac crest level and had non-contrast enhanced abdominal computed tomography scans before the procedure were included in the clinical study. The results were evaluated at 3 months after SWL. The absence of residual fragments was considered as stone-free status, and the existence of any size residual fragment was considered as treatment failure.

RESULTS

In our study, the mean age of the patients was 42.4 ± 12.8 years, and the stone-free rate was 92.5%. The median transverse stone size was 7.5 mm (min 2.8-max 15), and the median UWT was 4.2 mm (1-8.7). In the multivariate analysis, UWT (P = .002) and multiple stone presence (P = .027) were found to be independent factors affecting stone-free status. In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the optimal threshold value for UWT was determined as 5.25 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that UWT was the most important independent variable associated with increased failure in SWL treatment. The presence of multiple stones was another independent factor that increased the failure rates. Using SWL technology through experience accumulated with the mechanical hardware of the machine, we can select patients who are more suitable for this treatment and improve treatment outcomes.

Enteral diclofenac controls pain and reduces intravenous injection during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Urinary system stones are the third most common disease of urinary system following urinary infection and prostate pathology. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the methods used to treat Urolithiasis where shockwaves are transmitted through skin and body organs and crush the stones into small pieces. This is a painful procedure which usually requires analgesics. Each analgesic drug has its own advantages and disadvantages. The present research seeks to study the effectiveness of using diclofenac suppository in order to control pain and reduce need for venous drugs during ESWL procedure. This is a double blind clinical trial. 158 patients resorting to Shahid Hasheminezhad Specialized Center for ESWL were randomly selected to take part in this projects with due consideration of inclusion criteria. The patients were equally divided into the S (diclofenac suppository) and A (placebo) groups. 2 diclofenac suppositories were used in the S group 20 minutes prior to beginning ESWL. Then, ESWL was carried out in supine position using fluoroscopic conduction with standard method. The present research has studied pain scale of patients, operator’s and patient’s satisfaction during the operation and patient’s hemodynamic parameters in three phases prior to, during, and after ESWL. SPSS v.17 was used to study the data and Chi-Square Tests and Repeated Measure ANOVA were used to analyze the results. The level of significance in the present research was set to P-value < 0.05.A review of pain scales across both groups showed that using diclofenac suppository has a significant influence in reducing the pain scale and, hence, need for venous drugs (P-value < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of heart beat and blood pressure changes in various times (P-value > 0.05). The results also report different satisfaction levels for patients and operators across the two groups (diclofenac suppository and placebo) (P-value < 0.05). Higher satisfaction levels were observed among both patients and operators in the group receiving diclofenac suppository. A general look at the data yields the conclusion that receiving pain killers (diclofenac suppository) before starting ESWL plays a more efficient role in reducing pain scales of patients and enhancing operators’ satisfaction..

MiniJFil®: A New Safe and Effective Stent for Well-Tolerated Repeated Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy or Ureteroscopy for Medium-to-Large Kidney Stones?

Background

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is recommended for treating staghorn stones or stones measuring > 20 mm. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) or flexible ureteroscopy (URS) may be used as a complement. However, PCNL can cause trauma to the kidney parenchyma, and patients may find a noninvasive procedure, such as ESWL, to be more attractive.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficiency of MiniJFil® stenting associated with ESWL or second-line URS for the treatment of medium-to-large kidney stones. The MiniJFil® is a stent reduced to a suture of 0.3F attached to a renal pigtail. The entire ureter is occupied only by the suture of the stent.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 28 patients. Twenty-four patients had kidney stones measuring > 15 mm (group 1) and four patients had staghorn stones (group 2). All of the patients were fitted with MiniJFil® 2 - 3 weeks before any treatment. ESWL was always our first-line therapy. Stone-free (SF) status was defined as no evidence of stones.

Results

In group 1, the mean largest and cumulative stone diameters, respectively, were 18.7 ± 5.7 mm and 45.0 ± 12.0 mm. In group 2, the mean volume was 6,288.4 ± 2,733.0 mm³. The overall SF was 96.4% (100% for group 1 and 75% for group 2). The mean number of sessions of ESWL and URS, respectively, was 1.4 ± 0.7 and 0.8 ± 0.9 in group 1 and 4.0 ± 2.0 and 1.5 ± 1.3 in group 2. The mean times to achieve these rates were 3.2 ± 1.7 months and 5.6 ± 2.3 months for groups 1 and 2, respectively. One patient in group 2 was treated with only three sessions of ESWL. Renal colic was observed in only five patients (17.9%).

Conclusions

MiniJFil® stenting is safe and may be an alternative for the treatment of kidney stones during minimally invasive procedures.

Shock wave lithotripsy: the new phoenix?

INTRODUCTION

Following its introduction in 1980, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) rapidly emerged as the first-line treatment for the majority of patients with urolithiasis. Millions of SWL therapies have since been performed worldwide, and nowadays, SWL still remains to be the least invasive therapy modality for urinary stones. During the last three decades, SWL technology has advanced in terms of shock wave generation, focusing, patient coupling and stone localization. The implementation of multifunctional lithotripters has made SWL available to urology departments worldwide. Indications for SWL have evolved as well. Although endoscopic treatment techniques have improved significantly and seem to take the lead in stone therapy in the western countries due to high stone-free rates, SWL continues to be considered as the first-line therapy for the treatment of most intra-renal stones and many ureteral stones.

METHODS

This paper reviews the fundamentals of SWL physics to facilitate a better understanding about how a lithotripter works and should be best utilized.

RESULTS

Advances in lithotripsy technology such as shock wave generation and focusing, advances in stone localization (imaging), different energy source concepts and coupling modalities are presented. Furthermore adjuncts to improve the efficacy of SWL including different treatment strategies are reviewed.

CONCLUSION

If urologists make use of a more comprehensive understanding of the pathophysiology and physics of shock waves, much better results could be achieved in the future. This may lead to a renaissance and encourage SWL as first-line therapy for urolithiasis in times of rapid progress in endoscopic treatment modalities.

Treatment efficacy and outcomes using a third generation shockwave lithotripter

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical efficiency of a third generation electromagnetic shock wave lithotripter, the Lithoskop(®) (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), regarding outcomes, stone disintegration, retreatment and complication rates. To compare the results of the Lithoskop with other currently available systems and the reference standard lithotripter, the HM-3 (Dornier MedTech Europe GmbH, Wessling, Germany).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analysed the data from 183 patients, including 13 children, undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for renal and ureteric calculi collected from a prospectively populated database. Outcomes were assessed by plain abdominal film of kidney, ureter and bladder and renal ultrasonography for radiopaque and computerized tomography for radiolucent stones 1 day after treatment and after 3 months. We analysed stone size and location before and after treatment, stone disintegration rate, retreatment rate, stone-free and residual fragment rates after 3 months, along with auxiliary procedures and complications.

RESULTS

The mean (range) patient age was 48.6 (1.3-81.4) years, including 13 children with a mean (range) age of 8.4 (1.3-16.7) years, and 77% of the patients were male. In all, 46% of the calculi were localized in the kidney and 54% in the ureter. Renal stones were localized in the upper, middle and lower calyx and in the renal pelvis in 9, 29, 30 and 32% of patients, respectively. Ureteric stones were localized in the upper, mid- and distal ureter in 29, 19 and 52% of patients, respectively. The median (range) stone size before ESWL was 10 (4-25) mm in the kidney and 8 (4-28) mm in the ureteric calculi. The overall stone-free rate after 3 months was 91% (88% for renal and 93% for ureteric calculi); the mean number of sessions to achieve these rates was 1.3. Stone-free rates and the required number of sessions were determined only by stone size. In 7.1% of the patients (n = 13) post-interventional auxiliary procedures were necessary. We observed one perirenal haematoma as a major complication (0.5%), but this did not require any further therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical stone-free rates with the Lithoskop are high and similar to those of other available systems, including the reference standard HM-3 lithotripter. Retreatment and complication rates are low, supporting the use of ESWL as first-line therapy for urinary calculi <10 mm, independent of stone location.