Shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones in elderly male patients

A prospective observational study on the predictability of Triple-D score versus Quadruple-D score in the success rate of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones 1–2 cm in diameter

Introduction:

The aim of the study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of Triple-D scoring system versus Quadruple-D scoring system for assessing stone-free rate (SFR) in individuals with renal stones measuring 1–2 cm in diameter after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).

Materials and Methods:

The study was conducted on 120 patients who presented to a tertiary care center in eastern India. Systemic random sampling technique was applied with a sampling interval of 2. Triple-D scoring system comprising of three computed tomography based metrics – stone dimension (volume), stone density (Hounsfield unit), and skin-to-stone distance (SSD) was done before ESWL. Stone location was included as an additional parameter to formulate Quadruple-D scoring system where an extra score was given for stones in the non-lower polar region. Stone-free status was assessed by plain abdominal radiography 3 weeks after ESWL.

Results:

In the study population, stone dimension, stone density, and stone location were positive predictors of SFR after ESWL whereas age, sex, and body mass index of the patients, laterality of the stone and SSD were not. The area under the curve of Triple-D and Quadruple-D scoring systems were 0.598 and 0.674.

Conclusion:

Triple-D scoring system has been successfully validated as the SFR showed a parallel increase with every positive component. The Quadruple-D scoring system with a simple addition of stone location can further facilitate the validation of Triple-D scoring by increasing SFR, keeping the calculation simple and easy to use. These findings support the incorporation of Quadruple-D scoring system over Triple-D scoring system.

The 12-month follow-up of the low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy in the treatment of patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome refractory to 3-As medications

PURPOSE

Applying low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LI-ESWT) has been reported to improve symptoms of refractory chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) in short-term follow-up. This study aims to demonstrate the effect of LI-ESWT on refractory CPPS over the span of a 12-month follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an open-label, single-arm prospective study. LI-ESWT consisted of 3000 shock waves once weekly for 4 weeks (Duolith SD1 T-Top) were applied. Clinical symptoms were re-assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months using NIH-CPSI score, visual analog scale, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function and International Prostate Symptom Score.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of the 43 patients enrolled had a successful response at the 1-month follow up after the treatment. Twenty-six of the 31 patients who responded successfully to LI-ESWT at the 1-month follow-up, maintained their response at the 6- and 12-month follow-up. The existence of psychosocial disorder at the baseline characteristics analysis was the only potential factor that may hinder the effectiveness of LI-ESWT.

CONCLUSIONS

LI-ESWT has shown to be a safe and effective therapy for CPPS patients at the long-term follow-up. History of psychological disorders might be a significant predictor of a successful response.

Reinforcement of the Triple D score with simple addition of the intrarenal location for the prediction of the stone-free rate after shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones 10-20 mm in diameter

PURPOSE

We investigated the clinical efficacy of the Triple D score (TrD-S) on stone-free rate (SFR) prediction following shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for renal stones 10-20 mm in diameter and modified the scoring system to improve outcome prediction.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined clinical data from the medical records of 226 consecutive patients who underwent SWL for 10-20 mm kidney stones. The TrD-S was calculated according to the cutoffs of < 150 mm³ for stone volume, < 600 Hounsfield unit for stone density, and < 12 cm for skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. The Quadruple D score was defined as the sum of the TrD-S and stone location (0/1 point for intrarenal stone distribution at lower/non-lower poles, respectively). Complete clearance 3 months after the final SWL was considered the stone-free status.

RESULTS

The residual group (n = 102) had significantly older age, larger stones, higher stone density, higher lower-pole stone incidence, and lower TrD-S than the stone-free group (n = 124). In the multivariate analysis, age, TrD-S, and non-lower-pole stones independently predicted the SFR. The TrD-Ss of 0, 1, 2, and 3 points showed SFRs of 40.0%, 51.9%, 73.0%, and 100.0%, respectively. The Quadruple D scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 points showed SFRs of 0.0%, 37.9%, 54.5%, 84.4%, and 100.0%, respectively, with better prediction accuracy than the TrD-S (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The TrD-S is successfully validated for use in Japanese patients with 10-20-mm renal stones. Simple addition of the stone location to the TrD-S could reinforce SFR prediction after SWL.

Comparison of safety and outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy between elderly and non-elderly patients

Background

This study compared the clinical outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy between elderly (aged $65 years) and non-elderly (aged <65 years) patients.

Methods

A retrospective review of medical records was performed on 483 (non-elderly: 245, elderly: 238) patients with upper urinary tract stones who underwent shock wave lithotripsy between 2007 and 2015. The demographic data, stone parameters, stone-free rate, retreatment rate, and complication rate were analyzed in both elderly and non-elderly patient groups.

Results

There was no significant difference between non-elderly and elderly patients in terms of stone-free rate (46.5% vs 41.1%, P>0.05) regardless of stone site or stone size and overall retreatment rate (41.6% vs 37.0%, P>0.05). Elderly patients had a higher complication rate than non-elderly patients (15.5% vs 23.5%, P=0.026). The most common complication was flank pain. Receiver operating characteristic curves predicted that elderly patients (cutoff value: 65 years of age) had a higher risk of complications and that patients with smaller stones (cutoff value: 0.8 cm) had a higher stone-free rate.

Conclusion

This study showed that elderly patients with upper urinary tract stones undergoing shock wave lithotripsy had comparable efficacy for stone-free rates and retreatment rates, but higher complication rates.

Age-related delay in urinary stone clearance in elderly patients with solitary proximal ureteral calculi treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

We investigated the effects of aging on the stone-free rate (SFR) after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi. A total of 247 consecutive patients were retrospectively selected, classified into seven groups set at 10 year increments (from 20 to 90 years), and examined for SFR after SWL. According to our final analysis, 185 male and 62 female patients with an average age of 54.1 years had stones with a diameter of 11.5 mm and a density of 893.1 Hounsfield units. On average, SFR was 74.9 % at 3 months after 1.7 SWL sessions. SFR gradually reached ≥ 90 % for each age-group after 1.5-2 years. Median durations to achieve 50 % SFR were estimated to be 21 and 86 days for those in their 20 and 80 s, respectively. However, the difference between the two estimates was not significant (p = 0.064). The durations to achieve 50 % SFR for the other groups lay between these two estimates. Aging does not affect long-term SFR, but patients aged ≥ 80 years might experience delayed stone clearance within the first 12 months after SWL.

Contemporary management of ureteral stones

CONTEXT

Ureteral calculi represent a common condition that urologists encounter in everyday practice. Several treatment options are available for calculi that do not pass spontaneously or are unlikely to do so.

OBJECTIVE

In this nonsystematic review, we summarize the existing data on contemporary management of ureteral stones focusing on medical expulsive therapy (MET) and different treatment modalities.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed search was performed. We reviewed the recent literature on the management of ureteral calculi. Articles were considered between 1997 and 2011. Older studies were included selectively if historically relevant.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

For stones that do not pass spontaneously or with MET, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) are the most common and efficient treatment modalities. Both techniques have obvious advantages and disadvantages as well as different patterns of complications. For select cases or patients, other modalities may be useful.

CONCLUSIONS

Ureteral stones of up to 10mm and eligible for observation may be offered MET. For most ureteral calculi that require treatment, advances in SWL and URS allow urologists to take a minimally invasive approach. Other more invasive treatments are reserved for select "nonstandard" cases.

Metabolic assessment of elderly men with urolithiasis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the presence of metabolic disorders in elderly men with urolithiasis.

METHODS

We performed a case-control study. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) men older than 60 years of age and either (2) antecedent renal colic or an incidental diagnosis of urinary lithiasis after age 60 (case arm) or (3) no antecedent renal colic or incidental diagnosis of urolithiasis (control arm). Each individual underwent an interview, and those who were selected underwent all clinical protocol examinations: serum levels of total and ionized calcium, uric acid, phosphorus, glucose, urea, creatinine and parathyroid hormone, urine culture, and analysis of 24-hour urine samples (levels of calcium, citrate, creatinine, uric acid and sodium, pH and urine volume). Each case arm patient underwent two complete metabolic urinary investigations, whereas each control arm individual underwent one examination. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01246531.

RESULTS

A total of 51 subjects completed the clinical investigation: 25 in the case arm and 26 in the control arm. In total, 56% of the case arm patients had hypocitraturia (vs. 15.4% in the control arm; p = 0.002). Hypernatriuria was detected in 64% of the case arm patients and in 30.8% of the controls (p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Hypocitraturia and hypernatriuria are the main metabolic disorders in elderly men with urolithiasis.

Is shock wave lithotripsy efficient for the elderly stone formers? Results of a matched-pair analysis

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), in a comparative study based on the principles of matched-pair analysis. Over a period of 4 years, 2,311 patients were treated with SWL in a tertiary referral center. Patient and stone data were recorded in a prospective electronic database. Among these patients, 115 (4.97%) were older than 70 years of age and fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the study (Group A). For the purposes of the comparative analysis, Group A patients were matched for gender and stone parameters (side, location of stone, and diameter ±2 mm) with a control group of patients under the age of 70 (Group B). Following matching, the patients' electronic medical records were reviewed, to identify SWL success rates at 3 months and McNemar's test was used to compare the efficacy of SWL between the two groups. Matching was possible in all cases. The results indicate that there were no statistically significant differences in the mean number of SWL sessions or in the mean number of impulses per session between the two groups. The overall stone clearance rate achieved by SWL alone was 71.3% for Group A and 73.9% for group B. Discordant pairs were found in 37 cases (in 17 pairs only patients in Group A became stone-free, while in 20 pairs only patients in Group B became stone-free). By using McNemar's test, the difference in stone clearance rates between the two groups was not found to be statistically significant (p = 0.742). A total of 22 patients (19.1%) in Group A and 17 patients (14.7%) in Group B underwent an adjuvant procedure to achieve stone clearance. McNemar's test also revealed the absence of any statistically significant difference in SWL success rates between older and younger patients in the subgroups of patients presenting with either ureteric or renal stones (p = 0.727 and p = 0.571, respectively). In conclusion, SWL is still considered one of the first-line tools for geriatric patients suffering from urolithiasis, as increased age alone does not seem to adversely affect the efficacy of SWL.

Shock-wave lithotripsy in the elderly: Safety, efficacy and special considerations

Purpose

Shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) for elderly patients can be challenging. Patients often have a long-standing complex stone burden and significant comorbidities. We report a cohort of patients aged ⩾70 years who were treated by SWL, with special attention to treatment outcomes, complications and the need for adjuvant procedures.

Patients and methods

Over a period of 4 years, 2311 patients were treated with SWL in a tertiary referral centre. Among these patients, 137 were aged ⩾70 years (5.9%). Patient and stone data were obtained from an electronic database and the patients’ electronic medical records were reviewed.

Results

During the pre-procedural assessment, 29 patients (21.2%) were considered to be at high anaesthetic risk, due their comorbidities (American Society of Anesthesiology score 3+). In terms of stone burden, 16 stones (11.7%) were located in the distal ureter (mean stone diameter 7.9 mm) and 28 (20.4%) were in the proximal ureter (mean diameter 10.1 mm). In the kidney, 54 stones (39.4%) were in the renal pelvis, upper or mid calyx (mean diameter 10.6 mm), while 39 stones (28.5%) were in the lower calyx (mean diameter 10.1 mm). The median (range) number of SWL sessions per patient was 2.0 (1–3). The overall stone-free rate achieved by SWL alone was 63.5% (65.9% for ureteric stones and 62.4% for renal stones). In total, 38 patients (27.7%) had an adjuvant procedure to achieve stone clearance (ureteroscopy in 23, PCNL in 14 and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in one case). Apart from six cases (4.3%) of ureteric obstruction due to steinstrasse, there were no severe complications noted.

Conclusions

The management of elderly patients presenting with urolithiasis is challenging, due to the presence of significant comorbidities. Careful assessment of an integrated management plan for geriatric patients with urolithiasis is essential, and SWL still remains a safe and efficient first-line tool in well-selected cases.