Optimal therapy for the distal ureteral stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy

Challenges of Retrograde Ureteroscopic Procedures in Overweight Patients

BACKGROUND

Obesity and urolithiasis are both prevalent conditions that have an impact on the healthcare system. The ureteric diameter and accessibility play a crucial role in the management of urolithiasis in both overweight and normal weight patients. Studies have shown that obesity can lead to changes in ureter diameter where excessive body fat can exert pressure on the kidneys, causing them to enlarge in size and this enlargement can result in a compression of the adjacent structures, including the ureter. The aim of this study is to assess the incidence of intraoperative challenges faced during retrograde ureteroscopic procedures in overweight patients with ureteric and renal calculi.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent retrograde ureteroscopic surgery (RURS) for urolithiasis from 1st January 2021 until 30th August 2023. The outcome and any complications were documented and compared with the patient's Body Mass Index (BMI). All patients who undergo RURS in our facility have to have a Non-Contrast CT scan prior to surgery. Procedural success was determined by the ability to obtain access to the stone site intraoperatively and stone-free status in kidney, ureter, and bladder (KUB) X-ray post-operatively. Post-operative complications were recorded up to two weeks post-operatively and classified according to the Calvein Dindo Classification.

RESULTS

Our total sample size was 146 patients out of which 75 were overweight and 71 were normal weight patients. In 34 (45%) of overweight patients' access to the ureter was restricted due to a narrow ureteric orifice with ureteroscopy not successful; on the contrary 13 (18%) of normal weight patients faced this same issue. This was statistically significant with a p-value of .004. The stone clearance rates were 91% and 95% in overweight and normal weight patients respectively, which is higher in normal weight patients however this difference was not found to be a statistically significant finding (p-value .028). Overweight patients had 12% Grade I and 8% Grade II complications whereas normal weight patients had 11% Grade I complications and 1.4% Grade II with no higher-grade complications.

CONCLUSION

Retrograde ureteroscopic procedures are a safe treatment modality for patients with urolithiasis in both overweight and normal weight populations. They are shown to have similar success rates between both populations once ureteric access is obtained. However, access failure rates are shown to be slightly higher in overweight patients. Hence, further preoperative patient counselling and technical considerations should be undertaken.

The Lifetime History of the First Italian Public Extra-Corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) Lithotripter as a Mirror of the Evolution of Endourology over the Last Decade

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the only non-invasive treatment for kidney stones. It does not require an operating room, anesthesia, or hospital stay. Its role evolved over the years and nowadays ESWL is slowly disappearing from many stone centers and urologic departments. We present the history and the role of ESWL treatment since its birth in 1959 and its development through the following years. We also present details of its application and impact on the first Italian stone center in 1985. ESWL has had different roles over the centuries: in the early years it was a great alternative to open surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL), then it had its decline with the introduction of the miniscopes. Currently, although ESWL is not considered a treatment of excellence, newer models are emerging. With the application of new technologies and artificial intelligence, this technique can become a good option alongside endourologic treatments.

Laparoscopic surgery for upper ureteral calculi in geriatric patients: 5 years experience

OBJECTIVE

We have reviewed the success of laparoscopic calculi surgeries in geriatric patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on the laparoscopic ureterolithotomy surgeries performed at our central between January 2014 and January 2019 to treat upper ureteral calculi in geriatric patients. Among the patients who underwent these surgeries, we evaluated data on 24 cases whose records could be fully retrieved.

RESULTS

The age interval of the patients was 60-73 years, and the mean age was 63 ± 3.43 years. The size of the calculi was 19-24 mm, and mean size was 20.2 ± 2.5 mm. Because stone disease was present previously, 5 of these patients underwent endoscopic intervention, whereas two underwent open surgery. Sixteen of these patients had a history of unsuccessful shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) or ureterorenoscopy. The calculi-free rate was 100%. According to the modified Clavien classification, no major perioperative and postoperative complications were observed. The duration of hospital stay was 1-3 days, and the mean duration of stay was 1.6 ± 0.9 days.

CONCLUSION

We believe that owing to the high success and low complication rates, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy can be the first option of treatment for geriatric patients with impacted large calculi, with a history of unsuccessful SWL or ureterorenoscopy (semirigid, flexible).

Shock wave lithotripsy or retrograde intrarenal surgery: which one is more effective for 10-20-mm renal stones in children

OBJECTIVES

To compare shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureteroscopy in children with renal stone's diameter of 10 to 20 mm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study including 79 children, who had renal stone and underwent either shock wave lithotripsy or flexible ureteroscopy between January 2007 and June 2017. Of those, 38 patients underwent shock wave lithotripsy assigned as group 1 and 41 patients underwent flexible ureteroscopy assigned as group 2. Stone-free rate, fluoroscopy time, procedure time, complication rates, hospitalization time, and cost-effectiveness were monitored and included in the analyses.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 4.4 ± 3.5 in group 1 and 4.9 ± 4.1 in group 2. Stone-free rate was not different in both groups in the first and third months of follow-up. The mean fluoroscopy time was statistically significantly longer in group 1 compared to group 2. Procedure and hospitalization times were longer in group 2 compared to group 1. No complications were seen in either groups. The expenditure was calculated as 135.23 and 869.41 Euro per patient for groups 1 and 2, respectively, which shows significant higher cost in group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

In this present study, we have shown that shock wave lithotripsy is cheaper, has short hospitalization time and long fluoroscopy time and similar stone-free rate, and has the same efficiency compared to flexible ureteroscopy regarding pediatric renal stones with the diameter between 10 and 20 mm.

The economics of stone disease

The rising prevalence of kidney stone disease is associated with significant costs to healthcare systems worldwide. This is in part due to direct procedural and medical management costs, as well as indirect costs to health systems, patients, and families. A number of manuscripts evaulating the economics of stone disease have been published since the 2008s International Consultation on Stone Disease. These highlight costs associated with stone disease, including acute management, surgical management, and medical management. This work hopes to highlight optimization in care by reducing inefficient treatments and maximizing cost-efficient preventative strategies.

Optimization of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Delivery Rates Achieves Excellent Outcomes for Ureteral Stones: Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

Management of ureteral stones remains controversial. To determine whether optimizing the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy delivery rate would improve the treatment of solitary ureteral stones we compared the outcomes of 2 delivery rates in a prospective randomized trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From July 2010 to October 2012, 254 consecutive patients were randomized to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at a shock wave delivery rate of 60 and 90 pulses per minute in 130 and 124, respectively. The primary study end point was the stone-free rate at 3-month followup. Secondary end points were stone disintegration, treatment time, complications and the rate of secondary treatments. Descriptive statistics were used to compare end points between the 2 groups. The adjusted OR and 95% CI were calculated to assess predictors of success.

RESULTS

The stone-free rate at 3 months was significantly higher in patients who underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at a shock wave delivery rate of 90 pulses per minute than in those who received 60 pulses per minute (91% vs 80%, p = 0.01). Patients with proximal (100% vs 83%, p = 0.005) and mid ureteral stones (96% vs 73%, p = 0.03) accounted for the observed difference but not those with distal ureteral stones (81% vs 80%, p = 0.9, respectively). Treatment time, complications and the rate of secondary treatments were comparable between the 2 groups. On multivariable analysis the shock wave delivery rate of 90 pulses per minute, proximal stone location, stone density, stone size and an absent indwelling Double-J® stent were independent predictors of success.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy delivery rate can achieve excellent results for ureteral stones.

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.

A prospective randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of tamsulosin after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for a single proximal ureteral stone

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of tamsulosin on stone clearance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in patients with a single proximal ureteral stone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective randomized controlled trial was performed on 88 patients with a single proximal ureteral stone. After consenting with a doctor, the patients were allocated to the treatment (tamsulosin 0.2 mg once a day) or control (no medication) group, and the efficacy of tamsulosin was evaluated. The primary outcome of this study was the stone-free rate, and the secondary outcomes were the period until clearance, pain intensity, analgesic requirement, and incidence of complications.

RESULTS

A stone-free state was reported in 37 patients (84.1%) in the treatment group and 29 (65.9%) in the control group (p=0.049). The mean expulsion period of the stone fragments was 10.0 days in the treatment group and 13.2 days in the control group (p=0.012). There were no statistically significant differences in aceclofenac requirement or pain score between the two groups. Only one patient in the treatment group experienced transient dizziness associated with medical expulsive therapy, and this adverse event disappeared spontaneously.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this prospective randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of tamsulosin after ESWL for a single proximal ureteral stone suggest that tamsulosin helps in the earlier clearance of stone fragments and reduces the expulsion period of stone fragments after ESWL.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

BACKGROUND

Ureteral stones frequently cause renal colic, and if left untreated, can lead to obstructive uropathy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy, with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common interventions used to treat ureteral stones. ESWL treatment is less invasive than ureteroscopy, but has some limitations such as a high retreatment rate, and is not available in all centres. Recent advances in ureteroscopy have increased success rates and reduced complication rates.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the outcomes of ESWL or ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteric calculi.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings, all without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared ESWL with ureteroscopic retrieval of ureteric stones were included in this review. Study participants were adults with ureteric stones requiring intervention. Published and unpublished sources were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed study quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean differences (MD) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs (1205 patients) were included in the review. Stone-free rates were lower in patients who underwent ESWL (7 studies, 1205 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96) but re-treatment rates were lower in ureteroscopy patients (6 studies, 1049 participants: RR 6.18, 95% CI 3.68 to 10.38. ESWL-treated patients had less need for auxiliary treatment (5 studies, 751 participants: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.74; fewer complications (7 studies, 1205 participants: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.88); and shorter length of hospital stay (2 studies, 198 participants: MD -2.55 days, 95% CI -3.24 to -1.86).Three studies adequately described the randomisation sequence, three studies were unclear on how they randomised, while one study had a high risk of selection bias. All the studies had an unclear risk of performance bias and detection bias, while all had a low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias, or other sources of bias identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ESWL, ureteroscopic removal of ureteral stones achieves a greater stone-free state, but with a higher complication rate and longer hospital stay.

Acute postoperative pain after ureteroscopic removal of stone: incidence and risk factors

Purpose

Ureteroscopic removal of stones (URS) has been widely used to treat ureteral stones because it is comparatively safe, has a high success rate, and enables patients to rapidly return to their daily routines. However, some patients experience pain after URS, but the incidence of acute post-URS pain remains largely unknown. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of acute postoperative pain after URS and the associated risk factors.

Materials and Methods

Data for 143 consecutive patients who underwent URS from June 2008 to December 2010 were collected. After excluding 8 patients who developed intraoperative complications, the patients were divided into two groups according to postoperative pain on the first postoperative day. Acute postoperative pain was defined as a pain score greater than 4 on a visual analogue pain scale (normal range, 0 to 10). Various factors were analyzed to identify the risk factors that could predict acute postoperative pain after URS.

Results

The stone-free rate without URS intraoperative complications was 95.5%. A total of 21 (14.6%) patients experienced postoperative pain on the first postoperative day. Young age, psychiatric illness, history of urinary tract infection, use of a stone basket, large stone size, and prolonged operation time were identified as risk factors for acute postoperative pain.

Conclusions

The incidence of acute postoperative pain is not that low and should not be overlooked, because it is associated with postoperative complications that could result in an unscheduled hospital admission or visit. Active pain control should be contemplated after URS in young patients and in those with a history of urinary tract infection, psychiatric illness, large stone size, and prolonged operation time.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

BACKGROUND

Ureteral stones frequently cause renal colic, and if left untreated, can lead to obstructive uropathy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy, with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common interventions used to treat ureteral stones. ESWL treatment is less invasive than ureteroscopy, but has some limitations such as a high retreatment rate, and is not available in all centres. Recent advances in ureteroscopy have increased success rates and reduced complication rates.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the outcomes of ESWL or ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteric calculi.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings, all without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared ESWL with ureteroscopic retrieval of ureteric stones were included in this review. Study participants were adults with ureteric stones requiring intervention. Published and unpublished sources were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed study quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean differences (MD) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs (1205 patients) were included in the review. Stone-free rates were lower in patients who underwent ESWL (7 studies, 1205 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96) but re-treatment rates were lower in ureteroscopy patients (6 studies, 1049 participants: RR 6.18, 95% CI 3.68 to 10.38. ESWL-treated patients had less need for auxiliary treatment (5 studies, 751 participants: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.74; fewer complications (7 studies, 1205 participants: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.88); and shorter length of hospital stay (2 studies, 198 participants: MD -2.55 days, 95% CI -3.24 to -1.86).Three studies adequately described the randomisation sequence, three studies were unclear on how they randomised, while one study had a high risk of selection bias. All the studies had an unclear risk of performance bias and detection bias, while all had a low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias, or other sources of bias identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ESWL, ureteroscopic removal of ureteral stones achieves a greater stone-free state, but with a higher complication rate and longer hospital stay.

A prospective randomized comparison between early (<48 hours of onset of colicky pain) versus delayed shockwave lithotripsy for symptomatic upper ureteral calculi: a single center experience

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The role of early/emergency shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in symptomatic upper ureteral calculi has still not been established. We have performed a randomized comparison between early (<48 hours) vs delayed (>48 hours) SWL for symptomatic upper ureteral stones less than 1 cm to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of early SWL in these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and sixty consecutive patients with a single radiopaque upper ureteral stone <1 cm, who presented with an episode of colicky pain and who were undergoing treatment between July 2008 and June 2009 in our department were included. The patients were hospitalized and randomized into two groups-group A: SWL was performed within 48 hours of onset of colicky pain (early SWL) using the electromagnetic lithotripter (Dornier Alpha Compact) along with analgesics and hydration therapy; group B: SWL was performed after 48 hours (delayed SWL) along with analgesics and hydration therapy. The statistical analysis was performed in two groups regarding the patient demographic profile, presence of hydronephrosis, time to stone clearance, success rates, number of sessions needed, auxiliary procedures, modified efficiency quotient (EQ), and complications.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were enrolled in each group. The mean stone size was 7.3 mm in group A vs 7.5 mm in group B (P = 0.52). The stone fragmentation rate was 88.75% in group A vs 91.2% in group B (P = 0.35). The overall 3-month stone-free rate was 86.3% (69/80) for group A vs 76.2% (61/80) for group B (P = 0.34). The mean time taken for stone clearance was significantly less in group A than in group B (10.2 days vs 21.1 days; P = 0.01). The number of sessions needed in group A were significantly less than in group B (1.3 vs 2.7; P = 0.01). The auxiliary procedure rate was also significantly lesser in group A than group B (16.3% vs 32.5%; P = 0.001). The modified EQ (in %) was 67.2 in group A vs 59.4 in group B (P = 0.21). The steinstrasse formation and requirement for percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) were significantly less in group A (P:0.02 and P:0.01 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Early SWL (within 48 hours of onset of colicky pain) is feasible, safe, and highly efficacious in the management of symptomatic proximal ureteral stones <1 cm, resulting in a lesser requirement of number of SWL sessions, time taken for stone clearance, auxiliary procedure rate, and fewer complications in comparison with delayed SWL.

SWL is More Cost-Effective than Ureteroscopy and Holmium:YAG Laser Lithotripsy for Ureteric Stones: A Comparative Analysis for a Tertiary Referral Centre

Background:

To identify the most cost-effective treatment for ureteric stones ≤15 mm in our department, by using an economic model to compare the total cost of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) versus ureteroscopy with Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy (URSL).

Patients and methods:

Data for patients treated with the same lithotriptor were retrospectively analyzed. The financial department provided data about the cost of procedures. This model accepted a 100% stone-free rate for URSL in outpatients, and a 50% rate of insertion of a ureteric stent. The cost for each procedure to render a patient stone-free was estimated by the following equations: costSWL = cost(initial SWL session) + [cost(SWL session) × retreatment rate] + [cost(URSL) × SWL failure rate] + [cost(stent insertion and removal) × rate] + [cost(KUB film) × 4] costURSL = cost(URSL) + [cost(stent removal) × 50%] + [cost(KUB film) × 2]

Results:

Records of 228 patients with previously untreated solitary radiopaque ureteric stones ≤15 mm were reviewed. The total cost for SWL (cSWL) was £1491/patient, while the total cost for URSL (cURSL) was £2195/patient. The difference was highest in the upper ureter (over £1000), and lowest in the distal part (URSL about 40% more expensive). For lower ureteric stones >10 mm, SWL was over £500 more expensive than URSL.

Conclusion:

Using data from the department to calculate cost-effectiveness for ureteric stones ≤15 mm a difference in favour of SWL versus URSL was found. Uniform guidelines incorporating cost are impossible considering differences between countries; each centre should probably assess their data individually.

Impact of obesity on ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy of urinary tract calculi

PURPOSE

The treatment of urinary tract stones in obese patients may differ from the treatment of non-obese patients and their success rate varies. Our objective was to compare ureteroscopic treatment outcomes of ureteral and renal stones, stratified for stone size and location, between overweight, obese and non-obese patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Charts were reviewed for 500 consecutive patients presenting at our institution for renal and ureteral stones. A total of 107 patients underwent flexible or semi-rigid ureteroscopy with Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy and met criteria for review and analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, initial stone-free rates were 91%, 97%, and 94% in normal, overweight and obese individuals respectively. When compared to non-obese patients, there were no significant differences (p value = 0.26; 0.50). For renal and proximal ureteral stones, the stone-free rate in overweight and obese individuals was 94% in both groups; and a stone-free rate of 100% was found for distal stones, also in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ureteroscopic treatment of stones in obese and overweight patients is an acceptable treatment modality, with success rates similar to non-obese patients.

Does stone dimension affect the effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether stone dimension is a restrictive factor for ureterorenoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A group of 416 patients who had undergone ureterorenoscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS-PL) for lower ureteral stones between January 1999 and June 2006 in our clinic had been evaluated retrospectively. Two hundred and seventy (270, 64.9%) patients were men and 146 (35.1%) were women. The mean age of the patients was 36.61 (+/- 12.43) years. Patients were grouped according to stone dimension; 193 patients with stones smaller than 1 cm being group 1 and 223 patients with stones > or = 1 cm in dimension being group 2. Stone-free rate, operative time and rate of complications of the groups were compared. Pearson's correlation test, chi2 test, Fischer's exact test and Student's t-test were used for the statistical analysis. The p value was accepted as being meaningful if p < 0.05.

RESULTS

For group 1, the mean operative time was 39.19 (+/- 18.33) min. Proximal stone migration in five and false passage formation in three patients was observed. Three patients were stone-free after a second session of URS-PL. The cumulative stone-free rate was 97.4% (188/193). For group 2, the mean operative time was 48.5 (+/- 11.31) min. About 208 (93.27%) patients were stone-free after the first session and an additional eight patients became stone-free after the second session of URS-PL. False passage, ureteral perforation, ureteral avulsion and stricture were observed in four, six, one and one patients, respectively. No proximal stone migration was observed. The cumulative stone-free rate was 96.86% (216/223).

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of ureterorenoscopy (URS) in the treatment of distal ureteral stones was independent of stone dimension. However, the operative time was longer and the rate of perforation was higher in stones with a diameter > or = 1 cm. On the other hand, the migration rate was higher in stones < 1 cm in diameter. Generally speaking, there was no meaningful effect of stone dimension on complication rates.

Economics of stone management

Cost, in addition to efficacy and morbidity, has become an important factor in determining the best therapeutic modality for a variety of disease states. A comprehensive literature search finds that, in general, for staghorn calculi, percutaneous nephrostolithotomy is more cost-effective than shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for stones greater than 2 cm in any dimension, while SWL may be cost-effective for smaller stones. For ureteral stones, observation is the least costly treatment strategy. Among surgical options, ureteroscopy is less costly than SWL. For single and recurrent stone formers, medical prophylactic strategies involving drug therapy are more costly than conservative therapy involving dietary measures alone. However, drug strategies yield fewer stone recurrences.

Does Degree of Hydronephrosis Affect Success of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Distal Ureteral Stones?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the relation between the degree of stone-induced hydronephrosis and the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy in patients with distal ureter stones.

METHODS

A total of 215 patients with a solitary distal ureter stone with or without hydronephrosis were treated with shock wave lithotripsy. The degree of hydronephrosis was determined by renal ultrasonography. The patients were divided into four groups according to the degree of stone-induced hydronephrosis. Group 0 (44.2%) had no urinary system dilation, group 1 (32.5%) had mild dilation, group 2 (16.3%) had moderate dilation, and group 3 (7%) had severe dilation. The patients were treated with the Dornier MFL 5000 lithotripter. The results were compared in terms of the stone-free rates, number of shock waves, number of sessions, incidence of complications, number of secondary interventions, and time to stone clearance.

RESULTS

The mean stone size was 11.2 +/- 2.5 mm. In the hydronephrotic group, the stone-free rate was 74% compared with 83% in patients without hydronephrosis (P = 0.27). The mean time to stone clearance was 16.3 +/- 9.2 days. The differences among the four groups in terms of stone size and treatment outcome were not significant. However, the presence of hydronephrosis was significantly associated with repeat treatment (2.2 versus 1.6, P <0.001) and prolonged clearance time (18.7 versus 15.4 days, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study have shown that in patients with solitary distal ureter stones, the degree of hydronephrosis caused by the stone does not affect the overall treatment success with shock wave lithotripsy. However, stones in obstructed systems tended to require repeat treatment and prolonged time for stone clearance.

Extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

BACKGROUND

Ureteral stones frequently cause renal colic and if left untreated can cause obstructive uropathy. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy, with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the two most commonly offered interventional procedures in these patients. ESWL treatment is less invasive but has some limitations such as a high retreatment rate and lack of availability in many centres. Advances in ureteroscopy over the past decade have increased the success rate and reduced complication rates.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the outcomes of ESWL or ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteric calculi.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 - March 2006), EMBASE (1980 - March 2006), reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing ESWL with ureteroscopic retrieval of ureteric stones were included. Participants were adults with ureteric stones requiring intervention. Published and unpublished sources were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the results expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or weighted mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs (833 patients) were included. The stone-free rates were lower in the ESWL group (RR 0.84 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96). The retreatment rates were lower but not significant in the ureteroscopy group (RR 3.34 95% CI 0.82 to 13.62). The rate of complications was lower in the ESWL group (RR 0.48 95% CI 0.26 to 0.91). Length of hospital stay was less for ESWL treatment (MD -2.10 95% CI -2.55 to -1.64).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ureteroscopic removal of ureteral stones achieves a higher stone-free state but with a higher complication rate and a longer hospital stay.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for large ureteral stones using HM3 lithotriptor

PURPOSE

We assessed the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for large (more than 10 mm) ureteral calculi with the unmodified Dornier HM3 lithotriptor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 96 consecutive patients with large ureteral stones were treated with shock wave lithotripsy using an unmodified HM3 lithotriptor. Patients, stone characteristics, preliminary treatment before shock wave lithotripsy, additional procedures after shock wave lithotripsy, complications and clinical outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2003 a total of 96 patients (75 males, 21 females, mean age 51 years [range 16 to 81]) with large ureteral stones underwent shock wave lithotripsy. Average stone size was 14 mm (range 10 to 22), 90 stones were calcified, and 66 stones were located in the upper ureter, 20 in the mid ureter and 10 in the distal ureter. A total of 77 (80.2%) patients underwent a single shock wave lithotripsy session, 18 (18.7%) underwent 2 sessions and 1 (1.1%) patient underwent 3 sessions. The overall stone-free rate was 86.5% (83 patients). Complications occurred in 10 (10.4%) patients. Shock wave lithotripsy failed in 13 (13.5%) patients who were successfully treated with ureteroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that shock wave lithotripsy for large ureteral stones along the entire ureter with the unmodified HM3 lithotriptor has a high success rate with minimal morbidity. We recommend it as first line treatment.

Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for management of large upper third ureteral stones

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a prospective and randomized trial to compare the efficiency quotient and cost-effectiveness index of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) for the treatment of large upper third ureteral stones.

METHODS

A total of 35 male patients and 7 female patients with a solitary, radiopaque upper ureteral stone, 15 mm or more in diameter, who underwent SWL or URSL were enrolled in this study. The mean patient age was 53.1 +/- 14.5 years. The endpoint of the study was for the patient to be stone free or to have insignificant residual stone (3 mm or less) within the kidney.

RESULTS

The mean stone length +/- SD was 17.9 +/- 3.9 cm in the SWL group and 18.5 +/- 2.9 cm in the URSL group (P > 0.05). The efficiency quotient for SWL and URSL was 0.61 and 0.63, respectively. The cost-effectiveness index, treatment time, pain score, and hospital stay were greater in the URSL group. However, the degree of hydronephrosis significantly influenced the success rate of SWL. All patients with severe hydronephrosis in the SWL group needed auxiliary surgical procedures to become stone free.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficiency quotients of SWL and URSL were comparable in the treatment of large upper third ureteral stones. However, SWL should not be recommended as the first-line treatment option for the management of upper third ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm with severe hydronephrosis. Understanding the cost-effectiveness, success rate, pain score, and patient satisfaction score for the two different approaches constitutes the indispensable requisites for choosing the optimal first-line therapeutic strategy.

Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective study

We performed a prospective, non-randomised study to determine the appropriate first-line treatment modality for distal ureteral stones. Between 2003 and 2004, a total of 124 patients with distal ureteral calculi were entered into the study (mean age 48 years, 35 women and 99 men). Sixty-two patients were treated with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and 62 patients with ureteroscopy (URS). The average stone size was 6.9 mm (3-33 mm) for SWL and 7.2 mm (3-30 mm) for URS. The treatment decision depended on the patients' preference and clinical parameters (i.e. contraindications for anaesthesia). URS was performed under general anaesthesia, using semirigid 8 Fr instruments. SWL was performed under analgo-sedation using a Modulith SLX. Of patients treated with SWL, 84% had a treatment success within 7 days, 98% after URS. These results show a significant success (P=0.005) in favour of URS. The average in-patient stay after SWL was 3 days and for URS 4 days (not significant). The results show a high efficacy and a low complication rate for both modalities. The attained stone-free rate shows a significant advantage for primary URS.

Treatment of Ureteral Stones Using Holmium:YAG laser

INTRODUCTION

There has been a steady increase in the number of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. In addition to its soft tissue applications Holmium:YAG laser has also been found an excellent intracorporeal lithotripter for all kinds of stones. We here present the results of patients treated with Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in our clinic.

METHODS

Between June 1997 and December 2002, 205 patients with a diagnosis of ureteric calculi were treated with ureteroscopy using Holmium:YAG laser as an intracorporeal lithotriptor. The stones were localized in the distal ureter in 158 patients (77), middle and proximal ureter in 47 patients (23). Stones ranged in size from 5 x 5 mm to 20 x 10 mm and the operation time was about 35 minutes (ranged 25-65 minutes). Follow-up evaluations have done at first and third months.

RESULTS

The ureteral stone could not be reached in 10 patients (4.8). Stone fragmentation or removal was accomplished in all other patients. Four patients (1.9) had proximal migration of the fragments and later treated with extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy, and three patients (1.5) had ureteral perforation. They were managed by double J stent placement. Two of the patients had ureteral obstruction on the third month of procedure. One of the patients was treated with open surgery. For the other one, ureteroscopic balloon dilatation was performed and catheterized by double J stent and there wasn't any complication after the removal of stent.

CONCLUSIONS

Ureteroscopic Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy is a safe, technically feasible and efficacious treatment for ureteral stones.

Does tamsulosin enhance lower ureteral stone clearance with or without shock wave lithotripsy?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether alpha1-blockers have any impact on stone clearance in patients with lower ureteral stones who underwent either shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) or were followed up with standard hydration, analgesics, and anti-inflammatory treatment.

METHODS

A total of 78 patients (56 men and 22 women) who had lower ureteral stones located at the distal 5 cm of the ureter were divided into four groups. The first group consisted of 30 patients (38.5%) with stones less than 5 mm (range 3 to 5) who were randomly divided into two subgroups. Group 1 consisted of 15 patients (19.2%) who were followed up with oral hydration and diclofenac sodium. Group 2 consisted of 15 patients (19.2%) who received tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily in addition to the standard regimens. The second two groups consisted of 48 patients (61.5%) with stones greater than 5 mm (range 6 to 15) who underwent SWL. These patients were also randomly divided between those who did not (group 3, n = 24) and those who did (group 4, n = 24) receive tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily. All patients were re-evaluated with plain abdominal x-rays and helical computed tomography 15 days after the beginning of treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 78 patients, 36 (46.2%) became stone free. The stone-free rate was 20%, 53.3%, 33.3%, and 70.8% for group 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The best results were achieved in those who underwent SWL plus tamsulosin treatment (group 4). The differences between the stone-free rates for groups 3 versus 4 (P = 0.019) and the tamsulosin versus control groups (P = 0.0015) were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of tamsulosin to conventional treatment seemed beneficial in terms of stone clearance of lower ureteral stones, and this effect was more evident for larger stones, especially when combined with SWL.

Does Failure to Visualize the Ureter Distal to an Impacted Calculus Constitute an Impediment to Successful Lithotripsy?

BACKGROUND

A severe degree of ureteral obstruction is viewed as a predictor of poor outcome in shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). Impacted stones are often considered a contraindication to in-situ SWL.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Impaction in our study was defined as failure to visualize the ureter distal to the calculus with proximal hold-up of contrast for as long as 3 hours on an intravenous urogram (IVU). We evaluated 30 patients with impacted ureteral calculi, who were compared with a second unimpacted group matched for stone size and stone location. The calculi were reorganized into < or =10-mm and >10-mm groups. The results were compared in terms of clearance rates, number of shockwaves, number of sessions, and number of days between the start of SWL and clearance.

RESULTS

Between January 1998 and December 2001, 30 impacted stones were treated with lithotripsy. Complete clearance rates in the impacted as well as the non-impacted group were 76.7%. There was no statistical difference in the number of shockwaves, sessions, or time to clearance. The results were poorer in lower-ureteral than upper-ureteral calculi, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. However, the differences between the < or =10-mm and >10-mm stones were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Impaction on an IVU does not affect the results of lithotripsy.

Treatment of lower ureteral stones using the Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Lithotripsy using new-generation machines requires minimal anesthesia and so can easily be given in an outpatient setting. We report our experience with the Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter in the primary management of lower ureteral stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified 128 patients treated with SWL for lower-ureteral stones between April 1999 and August 2001. Complete follow-up was available for 112 patients. Their ages ranged from 19 to 78 years, with women accounting for 23%. Only three patients had a ureteral stent in situ. All patients were routinely followed up at 2 weeks with a plain film. The timing of further follow-up depended on the initial response to treatment.

RESULTS

Fragmentation occurred in 83 of 112 stones (74%): 93% of the successful cases and 43% of the unsuccessful ones. A total of 59 patients (53%) were stone free after one treatment. This figure increased to 73 (65%) after a second treatment. The mean size of the successfully treated stones was less than that of the failed stones (7.6 v 8.7 mm), although the difference did not reach statistical significance. Stone-free rates decreased as stone size increased, being 71% for the 28 stones < or =5 mm in diameter, 65% for the 52 stones 6 to 9 mm, 64% for the 25 stones 10 to 14 mm, and 42% for the 7 stones > or =15 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

When SWL can be delivered promptly in an outpatient setting, it remains a useful first-line treatment for lower ureteral stones. Although it is not as effective as ureteroscopy, its use can avert the need for more invasive treatment in half to two thirds of patients. It should be limited to stones <15 mm.

Independent predictors of failure of shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones employing a second-generation lithotripter

PURPOSE

To define factors associated with the failure of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in the treatment of ureteral stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied 405 men and 283 women (mean age 52.6 years) who underwent SWL with a second-generation lithotripter in the period 1994 to 2001. We evaluated available clinical and radiologic features that might have been related to failure of SWL therapy.

RESULTS

Treatment was successful in 502 patients (73%). The 186 patients (27%) in whom treatment failed underwent endourologic alternatives or open surgery. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that unsuccessful outcome was significantly related to: (1) pelvic ureteral stones (odds ratio [OR] 4.02; 95% CI 1.97, 8.19); (2) stone size >10 mm (OR 3.46; 95% CI 2.16, 5.53); (3) obstruction (OR 1.93; 95% CI 0.99, 3.77); and (4) obesity (OR 1.87; 95% CI 0.95, 3.77). Although the predictive value of each individual parameter was relatively low (15.3%-27.9%) the cumulative risk was 82.95% when patients had all four features. The strongest independent predictors of failure were pelvic stones and stones >10 mm (cumulative predictive value 57.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

These variables may enable identification of a subgroup of patients who will fail initial SWL. These patients may be candidates for endourologic alternatives as first-line treatment.

Emergency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for obstructing ureteral stones

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate emergency treatment of obstructing ureteral stones by in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) during acute renal colic.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 1994 to February 2000, 200 patients (mean age: 42 years) were treated by ESWL (EDAP LT-02) for obstructing ureteral stones causing acute renal colic refractory to medical treatment or recurring within 24hours of such treatment. Stones were visualised by fluoroscopic imaging and/or ultrasound. Follow-up included radiological and/or ultrasound examinations and lasted three months.

RESULTS

Mean stone size was 7mm (3-20mm). At three months, 164/200 (82%) patients were stone-free. This rate ranged from 79% to 83% according to the location of the stone, and from 75% to 86% according to the size of the stone. These differences in rate were not significant. Two or three ESWL sessions were required in 79 patients. ESWL was well tolerated in 90% of patients. The only complication was a case of pyelonephritis requiring the placement of a JJ stent, administration of antibiotics, and distant ureteroscopy. The 36 patients, in whom ESWL failed, underwent ureteroscopy (n=23) or lithotripsy with a Dornier machine (n=13).

CONCLUSION

Non-deferred ESWL for acute renal colic secondary to obstructing ureteral stones has a satisfactory success rate and very low morbidity.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi: what a powerful machine can achieve

PURPOSE

We assessed the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL, Dornier Medical Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia) for distal ureteral calculi with the HM3 (Dornier Medical Systems, Inc.) lithotriptor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 585 consecutive patients with distal ureteral calculi were treated with ESWL using an unmodified HM3 lithotriptor. Of these patients 67 referred for treatment only for whom no followup was available were excluded from further analysis. The remaining 518 cases were followed until they were radiologically documented to be stone-free or considered treatment failures. Before ESWL additional procedures were performed in 144 patients, including stone push back, ureteral catheter or Double-J (Medical Engineering Corp., New York, New York) stent placement, percutaneous nephrostomy, ureteral endoscopic maneuvers or stone basket manipulation. A total of 374 patients needed no preliminary treatment before ESWL.

RESULTS

Of the 518 patients 469 (91%) were successfully treated with 1 ESWL session, while 49 (9%) needed 2 or 3. Manipulation after ESWL was performed in 22 cases, including stent placement, percutaneous nephrostomy, ureteral endoscopic stone removal and a stone basket procedure. On day 1 after ESWL 327 patients (63%) were stone-free, 158 (30%) had less than 5 mm. fragments and 33 (7%) had more than 5 mm. fragments. At 3 months the stone-free rate increased to 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

These data show that ESWL for distal ureteral calculi with the powerful unmodified HM3 lithotriptor has a high success rate with a low rate of minimally traumatic manipulations before and after intervention. Results in terms of the re-treatment and stone-free rates are superior to those of any other second or third generation lithotriptor and comparable to the results of the best ureteroscopic series.

Estimating the effectiveness of various methods of evacuation of kidney stones, on the basis of data obtained on percentage of "stone free" and recurrent stone formation

Using the materials of more than 200 scientific papers of recent years in this review it has been carried out analysis of the effectiveness and also discussed the merits and demerits of various methods of treatment of urinary stone diseases (USD). With this purpose, for the first time it has been carried out analysis of treatment quality of USD using more important quantitative parameters of treatment efficacy: 1--percentage of "stone free"; 2--percentage of recurrent stone formation. It has been emphasized on the higher effectiveness of treatment in combination of the method of ESWL with the methods of ascending litholysis. It was shown that in order to solve problems such as etiology and pathogenesis of the disease, elaboration of quantitative risk factors of the disease, and search for effective measures on pro- and metaphylaxis of USD, and also elaboration of various (including therapeutics) medium and methods for complete and rapid evacuation of stones, it is needed to carry out intensively fundamental and applied researches in the field of urinary stone diseases.

The Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter: the first 150 ureteral calculi

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is the least invasive treatment for ureteral calculi and is the best accepted by patients and clinicians. This prospective study was performed to evaluate the results of SWL for all ureteral calculi.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between April 1999 and May 2000, there were 150 SWL treatments for ureteral calculi at our center. All patients who completed treatment (24 females, 126 males with an average age of 54 +/- 14 years) were entered in the study and were assessed at 1 and 3 months with a plain film of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder and an ultrasound scan or intravenous urogram if clinically indicated. The outcome has been analyzed according to stone size, location (lower ureter [LU], midureter [MU], and upper ureter [UU], number of treatments per stone, number of shocks per stone, and stone-free rate (SFR). The analgesia requirements during each treatment and complications have also been analyzed.

RESULTS

The SFR in the UU was 77% at 1 month and 85% at 3 months. The SFR in the MU was 74% at both 1 and 3 months. The SFR in the LU was 65% at 1 month and 74% at 3 months. Overall, the SFR for all calculi was 72% at 1 month and 79% at 3 months. Ureteroscopic extraction was necessary in 19% of the patients and conservative management for the remaining asymptomatic fragments, which were 2 mm or smaller. All of these asymptomatic fragments were seen to have passed spontaneously on follow-up imaging studies. Ureteral stents were not placed routinely prior to SWL, but there were 32 calculi (21%) for which stents had been placed prior to SWL: 29 (19%) in the UU, 3 (2%) in the MU, and 0 in LU. There was no difference in the SFR or ureteroscopy rate in UU calculi treated with or without stents and no difference in the number of treatments needed to achieve these SFRs. The efficiency quotient for the UU was 55%, 45% for the MU, and 45% for the LU. Oral analgesia was given routinely; however, additional intravenous analgesia was necessary in 24% of treatments. No serious complications were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

The Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter provides an effective noninvasive treatment for ureteral calculi that is achieved with minimal anesthesia and a low complication rate. Placement of ureteral stents prior to SWL does not enhance the SFR or obviate intervention if SWL fails. We recommend a low threshold for ureteroscopic treatment if significant progress is not made in fragmenting the stone with SWL.

Effect of diuresis on extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of ureteric calculi

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of diuresis during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment of ureteric calculi. The purpose is to improve stone fragmentation and clearance rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and six consecutive patients with ureteric calculi at different levels were treated by ESWL using Siemens Lithostar 2 machine. Patients have been randomized into two treatment groups. The first group was treated by standard ESWL and included 54 patients. The second group was treated by ESWL with diuresis during the ESWL session. Shock waves were given at a rate of 90 shocks/minute with energy starting from 10 up to 18 KV. During the ESWL session the patient belonging to the second group received i.v. infusion of 500 ml normal saline containing 40 mg furosemide as a diuretic. The stone fragmentation and clearance rates were the two end points for evaluation.

RESULTS

The average number of sessions per stone was 1.92 and 1.5 and the average number of shocks per stone was 6295 and 5300 for the first and second treatment groups respectively. Stone fragmentation rate was 47/54 (87%) and 50/52 (96.2%) and the stone clearance (success) rate was 47/54 (87%) and 48/52 (92.3%) for the first and the second groups respectively. Analysis of the results in relation to stone location showed that the two treatment groups were comparable for upper and middle ureteric calculi. However for distal ureteric stones, the addition of diuresis during ESWL was associated with a lower mean number of ESWL sessions and shocks per stone compared with standard ESWL: 1.38 and 4950 for ESWL with diuresis compared with 2.9 and 8544 for standard ESWL respectively. The stone fragmentation and 3-month clearance (success) rates were clearly higher: 93.8% and 87.5% respectively for ESWL with diuresis compared with 70.6% (for both fragmentation and clearance) with standard ESWL.

CONCLUSIONS

Diuresis is a useful, inexpensive and safe adjunct to ESWL of ureteric stones. It markedly improves the results of ESWL treatment of distal ureteric stones compared with standard ESWL.

Salvage extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy after failed distal ureteroscopy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

When intervention is necessary, controversy remains as to the best treatment modality for stones of the distal ureter. In general, ureteroscopy is favored over extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) as the treatment of choice for distal ureteral stones. Although uncommon, ureteroscopy failures have traditionally necessitated repeat ureteroscopy to retrieve retained stone fragments. We evaluated the efficacy of salvage SWL for failed primary distal ureteroscopy in the community setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From December 1989 to December 2000, 6099 patients underwent SWL with the Dornier HM4 lithotripter at our institution. We retrospectively identified 31 patients who had undergone the SWL after a failed distal ureteroscopy.

RESULTS

The average stone size in these patients was 9.4 mm, the average time interval from ureteroscopy to SWL was 17.2 days, and the average number of shockwaves delivered was 2386. All patients had had stents placed after ureteroscopy. Twenty-seven patients (87%) had resolution of their stone burden after one SWL session. The remaining four patients underwent additional procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Ureteroscopy is an effective modality for the treatment of distal ureteral stones. However, when unsuccessful, a salvage procedure may be necessary. Extracorporeal lithotripsy is a less invasive procedure with comparable success rates in the distal ureter. This report suggests that salvage SWL is an appropriate option for patients in whom distal ureteroscopic stone extraction fails.

Changing treatments for primary urolithiasis: impact on services and renal preservation in 16,679 patients in Western Australia

OBJECTIVES

To examine changing treatments for the primary presentation of urinary lithiasis and their effects on re-admissions, repeat procedures, cumulative hospital use and renal preservation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Linked hospital morbidity records were used to identify first-time admissions for renal and ureteric calculi from 1980 to 1997 in the population of Western Australia. The cases were followed to mid-1999 and actuarial methods used to estimate risks of further hospital admissions and procedures, including the loss of a renal moiety.

RESULTS

Between 1980 and 1997 the total rate of inpatient procedures for urinary stones more than doubled, at a time when the rate of first-time hospital admissions increased by only 13% and the conservative management of stones remained constant at approximately 59%. The predominant procedure for stone management was initially open lithotomy, replaced in the early 1980s by percutaneous nephrolithotomy and soon supplemented by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). The changes in technology led to a four-fold increase in procedural re-admissions within 30 days of primary separation. This was a result of repeated, staged or postponed interventions, often involving the use of stents or a second treatment with ESWL. The risk of surgical intervention decreased from 48% to 32%, whilst the cumulative length of stay over the first year decreased from 7.8 to 3.9 days. The risk of kidney loss declined significantly from 2% to <0.1% during the period.

CONCLUSIONS

The main reason for more interventions were short-term procedural re-admissions. ESWL reduced the need for invasive procedures and decreased cumulative hospital stay, despite more re-admissions. Renal preservation improved by a factor of 10.

Current management of urolithiasis: progress or regress?

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of the development of less powerful second- and third-generation shockwave lithotripters on surgical stone therapy in light of recent advances in ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy. As such, we sought to identify current trends in the treatment of stone disease, both at our university medical center and nationally, and to contrast them with the corresponding data from 1990.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All urolithiasis procedures (ureteroscopy, SWL, open surgery, and percutaneous stone removal) performed in 1998 were compared with all urolithiasis procedures performed 8 years earlier (1990) at a single institution (Washington University, St. Louis). In addition, Medicare data for each year from 1988 through 2000 were collected from the Health Care Financing Administration to assess the national trends for open stone surgery, ureteroscopic stone removal, SWL, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

RESULTS

At Washington University, the number of percutaneous stone removals remained stable; however, the overall number of ureteroscopies increased by 53%, while the number of SWLs, decreased by 15%. The Medicare data likewise reflect a marked decrease in open stone surgery and a marked increase in ureteroscopic stone surgery with a slight increase in SWL. Utilization of percutaneous nephrolithotomy remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe this trend toward ureteroscopy is attributable to several factors: improved, smaller rigid and flexible ureteroscopes; the availability of more effective intracorporeal lithotripters (e.g., pneumatic and holmium laser), and the lack of development of lower cost, more effective SWL. This is an unfortunate trend, as we are moving away from the noninvasive treatment that was the hallmark of urolithiasis therapy at the beginning of the last decade toward more invasive endoscopic therapy. Increased research efforts in SWL technology are sorely needed.

Factors associated with failure of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones using Dornier lithotripter U/50

BACKGROUND

In the present series of 170 patients who underwent extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment for ureteral stones, the authors determine which patients with ureteral stones had an unsuccessful outcome.

METHODS

The records of 170 patients with ureteral stones who were treated with SWL using the Dornier lithotriptor U/50 (EMSE 140) between January 1998 and December 1999 were retrospectively investigated. One hundred and thirty-one patients were treated with SWL alone (single session, n = 98; multiple session, n = 33) and 39 patients required auxiliary treatment due to failure of SWL (33 with transurethral ureterolithotripsy (TUL), one with open lithotomy, and five with residual fragments who were followed up). These two groups were compared using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Lower ureteral stones and stones more than 12 mm in diameter were associated with a poor outcome of SWL. There were no significant differences in age, gender, number of stones, JJ stent placement, and degree of ureteral obstruction due to the stone between the two groups. The odds ratios of lower ureteral stones and stones > or = 12 mm were 4.18 and 2.57, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients with distal ureteral stones and/or stones more than 12 mm in diameter were difficult to treat successfully with SWL. Alternatives such as TUL should possibly be considered as a first-line therapy for these stones.

Role of adjunctive medical therapy with nifedipine and deflazacort after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones

OBJECTIVES

To increase the success rate of the first treatment of ureteral stones through extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), we tested the efficacy of a medical therapy with nifedipine and deflazacort administered to patients who had undergone ESWL for ureteral stones.

METHODS

This prospective study lasted from October 1998 to September 2000 and involved 80 patients. All the patients underwent ESWL with Sonolith 4000+. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: 40 patients (group 1) received an "adjunctive" treatment with oral medical therapy (nifedipine and deflazacort); the other 40 patients (group 2) were used as the control group.

RESULTS

Complete fragment expulsion occurred in 30 (75%) of the 40 patients of group 1 and in 20 (50%) of the 40 patients of group 2 at the endpoint. A statistically significant difference was observed in the stone-free rate (P = 0.02). Concerning the symptomatic therapy, the average diclofenac use was 37.5 mg per patient in group 1 and 86.25 mg per patient in group 2 (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study have shown the role that adjunctive medical therapy with nifedipine and deflazacort given after an ESWL procedure can play in increasing the success rate of ureteral stone treatment. Furthermore, these results would suggest that adjunctive medical therapy can reduce total analgesic consumption after the ESWL procedure.

[Ureteral lithiasis, what treatment?]

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy are minimal invasive techniques, both of which have definitively become essential for the treatment of ureteral stones resistant to conservative treatment. At the time of evidence-based medicine, no study makes it possible to recommend one of these methods rather than the other. For stones of identical size and location, this review of the literature shows that extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy prove of comparable effectiveness and innocuousness. The urologist thus has two alternatives of which the technical control, the availability of the endoscopes or lithotriptors as well as the desire and comfort of the patients are the factors which condition his choice of the method for the treatment of ureteral stones.