[Treatment of bladder lithiasis with shock-wave extracorporeal lithotripsy]

Shock wave lithotripsy versus endoscopic cystolitholapaxy in the management of patients presenting with calcular acute urinary retention: a randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treatment of bladder and urethral stones was not precisely determined. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of SWL versus visual cystolitholapaxy in the management of calcular acute urine retention.

METHODS

From March 2015 to February 2017, a randomised controlled study was conducted on 100 patients for whom urethral catheter fixed for acute retention of urine due to urethral or vesical radio-opaque stone(s) ≤ 2 cm. Patients were randomised to either SWL group (n = 50) or visual cystolitholapaxy (endoscopy group) (n = 50).

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences between the pre-operative parameters of both groups were found. The mean stone diameter was 12.2 ± 3 mm and 12.2 ± 3.2 mm in SWL and endoscopy groups, respectively (p value = 0.4). The overall success rates of SWL group were 94% (47 of 50 patients) and endoscopy group were 98% (49 of 50 patients). SWL failed in 3 patients (6%); these 3 patients underwent cystolitholapaxy and were rendered free of stones. Intra-operative and post-operative complications were comparable between both groups (p value = 0.5 and 1, respectively). One patient had bladder perforation in the endoscopy group and was managed conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

SWL mono-therapy is safe, non-invasive and as effective as visual cystolitholapaxy in management of patients presenting with acute urine retention by vesical or urethral stones 2 cm or less and could be useful for patients unwilling/unfit for general anaesthesia.

Treatment of bladder stones without associated prostate surgery: Results of a prospective study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of noninvasive bladder lithiasis treatment without associated prostate surgery to know whether bladder lithiasis is an absolute indication for prostate surgery.

METHODS

Fifty patients with bladder lithiasis were entered in a prospective trial and were treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy if lithiasis was smaller than 4 cm2. Independent of the presence or absence of bladder outlet obstruction, in no case was prostate surgery associated. The variables studied were the effectiveness of the treatment, changes in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and the subsequent need for desobstructive prostate surgery. The statistical study was performed using Student's t test and the proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Bladder lithiasis was successfully eliminated in 93% of the cases (in 77% of them with a single extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy session). The mean IPSS decreased from 17.7 to 9.7 points (P = 0.0001) after lithiasis elimination. After a mean follow-up of 22 months, a mere 8% of the patients needed subsequent prostate surgery because their IPSS had increased to 20 points or more. The sole prognostic factor for the need for ensuing prostate surgery was the pretreatment IPSS score (P = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

Noninvasive management of bladder lithiasis with no associated prostate surgery is highly efficient and results in marked symptomatic improvement. Furthermore, the number of patients needing subsequent prostate surgery was very low at mid-term follow-up. Because of all of the above, the existence of bladder lithiasis is not an absolute indication for prostate surgery.

Urodynamic findings before and after noninvasive management of bladder calculi

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most frequent urodynamic observations associated with bladder calculi, and to assess whether the presence of calculi alters these observations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty patients with bladder stones were included in a prospective study in which two urodynamic tests were used, one at inclusion and another once the patient was stone- free after treatment by noninvasive methods (mainly extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy).

RESULTS

The results from the urodynamic evaluation with the stone in the bladder were: bladder outlet obstruction in 51%, detrusor overactivity in 68%, detrusor under-activity in 10%, and a normal study in 18%. There were no significant differences between the urodynamic study before or after treatment in maximum flow rate and postvoid residual volume, detrusor overactivity and detrusor pressure at maximum flow.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversely to what has been accepted for years, bladder calculi are not always associated with bladder outlet obstruction and the urodynamic results are not influenced by the presence of bladder stones during the urodynamic testing.