Impact of the degree of hydronephrosis on the efficacy of in situ extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi

Non-contrast computed tomography-based factors in predicting ESWL success: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We assessed the efficacy of some predictive factors that can be measured with non-contrast computed tomography and may affect ESWL success with a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All data sources were broadly investigated up to April 2022. Data were extracted from the relevant studies and analyzed with RevMan software. In a random effects model, standard mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) values were given with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

In total, pooled analysis included 7148 patients in 43 studies. The combined effect estimate showed significant differences between the ESWL success and ESWL failure groups in terms of Hounsfield unit (HU), Hounsfield density (HD), skin to stone distance (SSD), ureteral wall thickness (UWT), stone volume, stone area, abdominal fat parameters, diameter of proximal ureter, and hydronephrosis. However, perinephric stranding and renal cortical thickness were not found to be statistically significant between the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HU, HD, SSD, UWT, stone volume, stone area, abdominal fat parameters, diameter of proximal ureter and hydronephrosis are effective factors for prediction of ESWL success. It is important to decide on treatment before the procedure for stones with appropriate diameter for ESWL.

Development and validation of a predictive model for treatment outcome after emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with symptomatic ureteral stones during the COVID-19 pandemic: in a large prospective cohort

The predictors of treatment outcome after emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) are not well characterized. Therefore, based on a large prospective cohort, we aimed to develop and validate a nomogram for predicting treatment outcome after emergency SWL in patients with symptomatic ureteral stones. The development cohort included 358 patients with symptomatic ureteral stones who underwent emergency SWL between June 2020 and August 2021 in our hospital. One hundred and twenty-nine patients with symptomatic ureteral stones participated in the validation cohort from September 2021 to April 2022. The data were prospectively recorded. The backward stepwise selection was applied using the likelihood ratio test with Akaike's information criterion as the stopping rule. The efficacy of this predictive model was assessed concerning its clinical usefulness, calibration, and discrimination. Finally, 15.6% (56/358) of patients in the development cohort and 14.0% (18/129) of those in the validation cohort suffered from stone-free failure after emergency SWL. We identified four predictors for stone-free failure: stone size, stone density, skin to stone distance (SSD), and degree of hydronephrosis. This model showed good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves of 0.935 (0.899-0.971) and good calibration (P = 0.059). The decision curve analysis showed that the model was clinically valuable. In this large prospective cohort, we found that stone size, stone density, SSD, and degree of hydronephrosis were predictors of treatment outcome after emergency SWL. This nomogram will be helpful in preoperative risk stratification to provide individualized treatment recommendations for each patient. Furthermore, early identification and appropriate management of patients may increase the success rate of emergency SWL during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The effect of stone size on the results of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteric stones

Objectives

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Laser lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi in adults: can 3D CT texture analysis help predict treatment success?

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether multiple 3D computed tomography texture analysis (3D-CTTA) parameters can predict the therapeutic effects of holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy (LL) on ureteral calculi.

METHODS

The files from 94 patients (102 stones) with proximal ureteral calculi treated only by LL at a single institution were retrospectively retrieved from January 2016 to March 2019. According to intra-operative observations and postoperative reexamination, samples were divided into a completely crushed and a non-crushed group. Preoperative non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography (NCCT) images obtained by multiple CT scanners were imported to MaZda software for 3D texture analysis (TA). The CT-derived value of each target stone was measured, and 15 TA parameters were extracted by delineating volumes of interest (VOIs). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were drawn to determine the optimal critical value of each parameter based on the Youden index, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses determined the significant factors for LL success.

RESULTS

In univariable analysis, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed among 7 parameters. In multivariable analysis, Perc.01 3D > 2062 (p = 0.03) and Z-fraction of image in runs (Z-Fraction) > 0.45570 (p = 0.009) were significant independent predictors, with odds ratios (ORs) of 24.204 and 60.329, respectively. In subgroup analysis based on the cutoff value of the CT-derived value (HU = 960), Perc.01 3D (OR = 44.154, 95% CI (2.379, 819.618), p = 0.011) and Z-Fraction (OR = 14.519, 95% CI (2.088, 100.953), p = 0.007) remained statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of 3D-CTTA parameters and the CT-derived value can be used as a quantitative reference to predict whether a target stone could be completely crushed by LL.

KEY POINTS

• Computed tomography texture analysis (CTTA) may be helpful in selecting suitable laser lithotripsy (LL) patients. • 3D-CTTA better predicts stone fragility than commonly used methods (such as the CT-derived value). • The combination of CTTA and the CT-derived value can be used as a preoperative quantitative reference.

Factors affecting success in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones larger than 1 cm with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in adult patients

The aim of the study was to analyze the factors predicting success for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones larger than 1 cm with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in adult patients. Between January 2014 and December 2018, 480 adult patients in total underwent SWL and data were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with multiple ureteral stones, solitary kidney, congenital abnormality, skeletal system abnormality, history of previous urinary system surgery and SWL, renal insufficiency, patients who could not tolerate SWL and pediatric patients were excluded from the study. The remaining 415 patients were divided into two groups as success (Group 1, n = 307) and failure (Group 2, n = 108). The overall success rate was 73.9%. The values of stone size, Hounsfield Unit (HU), skin to stone distance (SSD), ureteral wall thickness (UWT), proximal ureter diameter, renal pelvis diameter, hydronephrosis grade, and duration of renal colic were significantly higher in Group 2 compared to Group 1. In binary logistic regression analyses, HU, UWT, and proximal ureter diameter were found to be independent predictors. HU, UWT, and proximal ureter diameter had sensitivity and specificity of 92-92%, 88-23%, and 87-46%, with cutoff values of 740 HU, 2.5 mm and 8.5 mm, respectively. The area under the curve values were 0.96, 0.97, and 0.96 for HU, UWT, and proximal ureter diameter, respectively. The CT-based parameters, including HU, UWT, and proximal ureter diameter are independent predictive factors with excellent accuracy for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones larger than 1 cm with SWL in adult patients. Based on these factors, SWL can be considered for proximal ureteral stones larger than 1 cm.

Does the presence or degree of hydronephrosis affect the stone disintegration efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence or degree of hydronephrosis (HN) affects the stone disintegration efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). A comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to retrieve relevant studies. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for comparisons of outcomes of interest. In total, seven comparative studies with 2033 patients were included. Overall results indicated no significant difference in stone-free rate (SFR) and retreatment rate between two groups. Subgroup analysis further revealed: (1) compared with moderate or severe HN, non-HN SWL brought significantly lower retreatment rate (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.52-0.87, P = 0.002 and RR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.40-0.76, P = 0.0003, respectively) and shorter clearance time (MD - 3.80, 95%CI - 5.81 to - 1.79, P = 0.0002 and MD - 5.93, 95%CI - 10.29 to - 1.57, P = 0.008, respectively); (2) SWLs performed without stone-induced HN or with artificial HN were associated with significantly higher SFR (RR 1.11, 95%CI 1.04-1.18, P = 0.001 and RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.87-0.99, P = 0.02, respectively); (3) non-HN SWL brought significantly higher SFR than HN group when treating proximal ureteral stones (RR 1.14, 95%CI 1.04-1.24, P = 0.005). Generally, SWLs performed with HN were shown to offer similar stone disintegration efficacy to those without HN. However, it seemed preferable to perform SWL: (1) without severe to moderate HN or stone-induced HN; (2) with artificial HN; (3) without HN when treating proximal ureteral stones.

Single extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for proximal ureter stones: Can CT texture analysis technique help predict the therapeutic effect?

PURPOSE

To explore whether the computed tomography texture analysis (CTTA) technique can help predict the curative effects of a single extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for proximal ureteral stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In all, 100 patients with proximal ureteral stone underwent non-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) before ESWL. The patients were divided into success and failure groups. Success of ESWL was defined as the patients being stone-free or having residual stone fragments of ≤2 mm. Traditional characteristics, such as stone size, body mass index (BMI), and skin-to-stone distance (SSD), and CTTA metrics, such as the mean Hounsfield unit (HU) density, entropy, kurtosis, and skewness, were analyzed and compared between two groups by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine Youden index-based cutoff values.

RESULT

Failure of stone removal was observed in 36 patients (36%). Stone height, stone cross-sectional diameter, largest cross-sectional area, stone volume, stone density (mean HU), and CTTA metrics (kurtosis and entropy) were the significant independent predictors of ESWL success on univariate analysis (p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, mean HU, skewness, and kurtosis were shown to be significant predictors of ESWL success (p < 0.05). In subgroup analysis based on the cutoff value of mean stone density (HU = 857), the only significant independent factor associated with both subgroups was kurtosis (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

As a quantitative analysis method, CTTA may be helpful in selecting appropriate ESWL patients. High kurtosis and low mean HU values simultaneously indicate a relatively higher ESWL success rate.

Impact of Pretreatment Hydronephrosis on the Success Rate of Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Patients with Ureteral Stone

PURPOSE

To evaluate predictors of the success rate for one session of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), focusing on the relationships between pretreatment hydronephrosis grade and one-session SWL success rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of 1824 consecutive patients who underwent an initial session of SWL for treatment of urinary stones between 2005 and 2013 were reviewed. After exclusion, 700 patients with a single, 4-20 mm diameter radiopaque calculus were included in the study.

RESULTS

The mean maximal stone length (MSL) and skin-to-stone distance were 9.2±3.9 and 110.8±18.9 mm, respectively. The average values for mean stone density (MSD) and stone heterogeneity index (SHI) were 707.0±272.1 and 244.9±110.1, respectively. One-session success rates were 68.4, 75.0, 75.1, 54.0, and 10.5% in patients with hydronephrosis grade 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Patients were classified into success or failure groups based on SWL outcome. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that MSL [odds ratio (OR) 0.888, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.841-0.934, p<0.001], MSD (OR 0.996, 95% CI: 0.995-0.997, p<0.001), SHI (OR 1.007, 95% CI: 1.005-1.010, p<0.001), and pretreatment hydronephrosis grade (OR 0.601, 95% CI: 0.368-0.988, p=0.043) were significantly associated with one-session success.

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment grades 3 or 4 hydronephrosis were associated with failure of SWL in patients with a single ureteral stone. In the presence of severe hydronephrosis, especially hydronephrosis grade 4; physicians should proceed cautiously in choosing and offering SWL as the primary treatment for ureteral stone.

Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy

Objectives:

We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and outcome of shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy in the management of the proximal ureteral stones of diameter exceeding 15 mm.

Methods:

During the 2009−2014 study period, 147 patients presenting with the proximal ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter were treated. Both shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy were offered for our patients. A 6/8.9 Fr semirigid ureteroscope was used in conjunction with a holmium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser. The stone-free rate was assessed at 2 weeks and 3 months post-treatment. All patients were evaluated for stone-free status, operation time, hospital stay, perioperative complications, and auxiliary procedures.

Results:

Of the 147 patients who took part in this study, 66 (45%) had undergone shock wave lithotripsy and 81 (55%) underwent ureteroscopy. At the 3-month follow-up, the overall stone-free rate in the shock wave lithotripsy group was 39/66 (59%) compared to 70/81 (86.4%) in the ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy group. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy achieved a highly significant stone-free rate (p = 0.0002), and the mean operative time, auxiliary procedures, and postoperative complication rates were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion:

In terms of the management of proximal ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter, ureteroscopy achieved a greater stone-free rate and is considered the first-line of management. Shock wave lithotripsy achieved lower stone-free rate, and it could be used in selected cases.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus ureteroscopic lithotomy for large (>15 mm) impacted upper ureteral stones in different locations: is the upper border of the fourth lumbar vertebra a good indication for choice of management method?

Abstract To determine whether treatment of patients with large (>15 mm) impacted upper ureteral stones depended on stone location, we prospectively evaluated the therapeutic outcomes, complications, safety, and effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureteroscopic lithotomy (URSL) in patients with stones higher and lower than the upper border of the fourth lumbar vertebra. Of the 174 patients analyzed, 83 (47.7%) underwent PCNL and 91 (52.3%) underwent URSL; all patients were followed up 1 month later and every 6 months for 18 months. Mean operation time (108.76±19.36 vs. 63.56±16.38 minutes, p<0.05) and postoperative hospital stay (2.49±1.23 vs. 5.36±1.98 days, p<0.05) were significantly longer in the PCNL than in the URSL group. The overall stone-free rates after 1 month were 96.4% and 75.8%, respectively, differing significantly for stones higher (97.8% vs. 57.5%, p<0.05) but not lower (94.7% vs. 90.2%) than the upper border of the fourth lumbar vertebra. The stone-retropulsion rate of URSL differed significantly for stones higher and lower than the upper border of the 4th lumbar vertebra (47.5% vs. 9.8%, p<0.05). Postprocedural complication rates were comparable in the URSL and PCNL groups, although the rate of auxiliary or salvage procedures was higher in the URSL group. The efficiency quotients (EQ) for PCNL and URSL were 0.93 and 0.59, respectively, with EQs in the URSL group differing significantly for stones higher and lower than the upper border of the fourth lumbar vertebra (0.40 vs. 0.82, p<0.05). Our findings indicate that treatment of impacted upper ureteral stones is dependent on stone location relative to the upper border of the fourth lumbar vertebra. URSL is unsuitable for stones at a higher location, whereas URSL and PCNL were equally effective for stones at a lower location.

Recent finding and new technologies in nephrolitiasis: a review of the recent literature

This review summarizes recent literature on advances regarding renal and ureteral calculi, with particular focus in areas of recent advances in the overall field of urolithiasis. Clinical management in everyday practice requires a complete understanding of the issues regarding metabolic evaluation and subgrouping of stone-forming patients, diagnostic procedures, effective treatment regime in acute stone colic, medical expulsive therapy, and active stone removal. In this review we focus on new perspectives in managing nephrolitihiasis and discuss recentadvances, including medical expulsive therapy, new technologies, and refinements of classical therapy such as shock wave lithotripsy, give a fundamental modification of nephrolithiasis management. Overall, this field appears to be the most promising, capable of new developments in ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous approaches. Further improvements are expected from robotic-assisted procedures, such as flexible robotics in ureterorenoscopy.

[Management of proximal ureteral stones]

Proximal ureteral stone less than 4-6mm may initially be treated by surveillance. Generally, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the first line treatment for proximal ureteral stones, specially for stones less than 1cm. For stones greater than 1cm, the results of ureteroscopy (URS) are better than the results of ESWL and in these cases URS may be an option. In case of failure of ESWL, URS can be proposed. URS can be the first line treatment in case of severe ureteral obstruction with no urinary infection. Proximal ureteroscopy must be careful because severe complications are not infrequent. Open surgery has very rare indication. Metabolic check-up and annually follow-up with at least a renal imaging at three months are recommended.