Development of a Mathematical Model to Predict Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Outcome

Stone decision engine accurately predicts stone removal and treatment complications for shock wave lithotripsy and laser ureterorenoscopy patients

Kidney stones form when mineral salts crystallize in the urinary tract. While most stones exit the body in the urine stream, some can block the ureteropelvic junction or ureters, leading to severe lower back pain, blood in the urine, vomiting, and painful urination. Imaging technologies, such as X-rays or ureterorenoscopy (URS), are typically used to detect kidney stones. Subsequently, these stones are fragmented into smaller pieces using shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) or laser URS. Both treatments yield subtly different patient outcomes. To predict successful stone removal and complication outcomes, Artificial Neural Network models were trained on 15,126 SWL and 2,116 URS patient records. These records include patient metrics like Body Mass Index and age, as well as treatment outcomes obtained using various medical instruments and healthcare professionals. Due to the low number of outcome failures in the data (e.g., treatment complications), Nearest Neighbor and Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) models were implemented to improve prediction accuracies. To reduce noise in the predictions, ensemble modeling was employed. The average prediction accuracies based on Confusion Matrices for SWL stone removal and treatment complications were 84.8% and 95.0%, respectively, while those for URS were 89.0% and 92.2%, respectively. The average prediction accuracies for SWL based on Area-Under-the-Curve were 74.7% and 62.9%, respectively, while those for URS were 77.2% and 78.9%, respectively. Taken together, the approach yielded moderate to high accurate predictions, regardless of treatment or outcome. These models were incorporated into a Stone Decision Engine web application (http://peteranoble.com/webapps.html) that suggests the best interventions to healthcare providers based on individual patient metrics.

Extremely slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones

To elucidate and compare the efficacy and safety of the reduced (30 shocks/min with 1200 shocks/session) and standard protocols (60 shocks/min with 2400 shocks/session) of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for ureteral stones treatment. This study was a retrospective review of 2410 SWL procedures with reduced or standard protocols (groups R and S) in 1106 patients for ureteral stones between March 2014 and March 2021. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as the absence of residual fragments on ultrasonography and plain radiography within 30 and 90 days. A multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching analysis evaluated the association between the reduced protocol and treatment success. This study included 311 and 544 patients in the reduced (R) and standard (S) protocol groups, respectively. The patient's characteristics were comparable, excluding the lithotripter machine. No significant difference was observed between groups R and S in treatment success rates within 30 (63.3 vs. 65.8%, p = 0.50) and 90 days (88.7 vs. 91.5%, p = 0.18). The multivariate analysis indicated no significant association between reduced protocol and treatment success within 30 and 90 days (p = 0.44 and p = 0.68, respectively). Propensity score matching showed no significant difference in the treatment success rates within 30 and 90 days. The Extremely slow, half number protocol outcomes are comparable to those of the standard protocol for treating ureteral stones.

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.

Success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy based on CT texture analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aims of the study were to evaluate whether computerised tomography texture analysis (CTTA) based on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) has predictive value for the success of extracorporeal-shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in upper urinary tract stones (UUTS).

METHODS

This study included 156 of 356 patients undergoing ESWL for UUTS sized 0.5-2 cm from 2015 to 2019. Patients with congenital kidney anomalies, radiolucent stones, multiple stones, treated for upper urinary tract stones previously and lower pole stones were excluded from study. The number of ESWL sessions of the patients was as follows: 78 (50%) patients had 1 session, 30 (19.2%) patients had 2 sessions and 48 (30.8%) patients had >2 sessions. First- and second-order CTTA properties of patients' UUTS were evaluated using texture analysis software (LIFEx Software). Other clinical features such as Hounsfield Unit (HU), initial stone size, body-mass index (BMI) and skin to stone distance (SSD) was recorded. The patients were divided into two groups according to ESWL success. Cases with residual stones larger than 4 mm were considered failed cases.

RESULTS

BMI, the standard deviation of HU, SSD, skewness, kurtosis, entropy and all second-order statistics were found to be statistically different between the two groups except for correlation (P < .05). Multivariate analysis showed longer SSD and four new parameters of CTTA (kurtosis, entropy, dissimilarity and energy by the distribution of pixel grey levels in the UUTS) to be significant predictors for unsuccessful ESWL outcomes. SSD and second-order CTTA properties (dissimilarity and energy) had an area under ROC curve of 0.802, 0.850 and 0.824 at a 95% confidence interval. ESWL success rate in all patients was 76.9%.

CONCLUSION

CTTA can help select patients who will undergo ESWL for upper urinary tract stones. Thus, we can reduce treatment costs and ESWL complications by preventing unnecessary ESWL applications.

Extremely-slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for asymptomatic renal stones <20 mm

PURPOSE

To compare the treatment success rate and safety of reduced (30 shocks/min, 1,200 shocks/session) versus standard (60 shocks/min, 2,400 shocks/session) extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for the management of renal stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 404 patients who underwent extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for 5-20-mm renal stones between April 2011 and March 2019. Patients selected the reduced or standard protocol (group R and S) after explaining the potential benefits and disadvantages. The primary outcome was treatment success within 12 weeks, which was defined as no residual fragment or fragments <4 mm on ultrasonography and plain radiograph.

RESULTS

In total, 94 and 310 patients underwent shockwave lithotripsy with a reduced and standard protocol, respectively. The background characteristics of the participants did not significantly differ. The treatment success within 12 weeks was achieved in 78 (83.0%) patients in group R and 259 (83.5%) in group S (p=0.88). The median number of the session was 3 (interquartile range, 2-4) in both groups (p=0.53). The total complication rates were 5.4% in group R and 6.1% in group S. Three (1.0%) patients in group S experienced perirenal hematoma, which was conservatively treated. The reduced protocol was not associated with treatment success in the multivariate analysis adjusted for potential confounders (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.80; p=0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

The new treatment amendment with a slower delivery rate successfully reduced the total number of shocks need to fragment renal stones <20 mm without compromising the stone-free rate.

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.

The Predictive Role of Abdominal Fat Parameters and Stone Density on SWL Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to detect the role of radiological abdominal fat parameters by tomography and stone density by plain X-ray on extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) stone-free rate.

METHODS

The patients who had undergone SWL for a single opaque renal stone < 2 cm in diameter and proximal ureteric stone < 1 cm in diameter were collected retrospectively. The characteristics of patients and stones were recorded. The stone attitude, HU, abdominal fat parameters, paraperirenal fat area, perirenal infiltration and severity of hydronephrosis with pre-treatment Non- Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT) and stone density with radiography were evaluated by a radiologist. Four weeks after the last SWL; all patients were evaluated by plain X-ray and categorized as Stone Free (SF) and Residual Fragment (RF) group.

RESULTS

51 patients with renal stones and 88 patients with proximal ureteral stones were included in the study. 24 (47%) and 63 (71%) patients were classified as SFfor renal and ureteral stones respectively. Only stone size was an independent predictor for stone-free rates after SWL for renal and proximal ureteral stones on multivariate analysis. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves for renal calculi revealed that creatinine level, stone size, stone attitude, Houns-Field Unit (HU) and Skin-to-Stone Distance (SSD) were the predictive factors for the SWL outcome (p< 0.05). The ROC curve for ureteral calculi demonstrated that HU, stone size and attitude were the predictive factors (p< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

All abdominal fat parameters and the stone density were not related to SWL failure. A large follow-up with more patients is essential to confirm the role of radiological parameters on the outcome of SWL.

Predicting shockwave lithotripsy outcome for urolithiasis using clinical and stone computed tomography texture analysis variables

We aimed to develop and evaluate a statistical model, which included known pre-treatment factors and new computed tomography texture analysis (CTTA) variables, for its ability to predict the likelihood of a successful outcome after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment for renal and ureteric stones. Up to half of patients undergoing SWL may fail treatment. Better prediction of which cases will likely succeed SWL will help patients to make an informed decision on the most effective treatment modality for their stone. 19 pre-treatment factors for SWL success, including 6 CTTA variables, were collected from 459 SWL cases at a single centre. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed by independent statisticians to predict the probability of a stone free (both with and without residual fragments) outcome after SWL. A multivariable model had an overall accuracy of 66% on Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) analysis to predict for successful SWL outcome. The variables most frequently chosen for the model were those which represented stone size. Although previous studies have suggested SWL can be reliably predicted using pre-treatment factors and that analysis of CT stone images may improve outcome prediction, the results from this study have not produced a useful model for SWL outcome prediction.

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.

How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy?

It is well recognized that the popularity of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), despite its non-invasive character, has decreased during recent years. This is partly explained by the technological achievements in endoscopy and urologists’ enthusiasm for such procedures. Another explanation is that many urologists have been insufficiently successful with SWL. The latter effect might to some extent be a result of the performance of the lithotripter used, but in too many cases, it is evident that the principles of how shock wave lithotripsy should be carried out are poorly applied. The purpose of this article is to emphasize some important aspects on how SWL best should be used. Based on decades of experience, it stands to reason that success with SWL does not come automatically and attention has to be paid to all details of this technique.

Shockwave lithotripsy: techniques for improving outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) remains the only effective truly non-invasive treatment for nephrolithiasis. While single-treatment success rates may not equal those of ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy, it has an important role to play in the management of stones. In this paper, we outline the latest evidence-based recommendations for maximizing SWL outcomes, while minimizing complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive review of the current literature was performed regarding maximizing SWL outcomes.

RESULTS

Several different considerations need to be made regarding patient selection with respect to body habitus, body mass index, anatomical location and underlying urologic abnormalities. Stone composition and stone density (Hounsfield Units) are important prognostic variables. Patient positioning is critical to allow for adequate stone localization with either fluoroscopy or ultrasound. Coupling should be optimized with a low viscosity gel applied to the therapy head first and patient movement should be limited. SWL energy should be increased slowly and shockwave rates of 60 or 90 Hz should be used. Medical expulsive therapy with alpha-blockers after SWL treatment has shown benefit, particularly with stones greater than 10 mm.

CONCLUSION

While single-treatment success rates may not equal those of ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy, with proper patient selection, optimization of SWL technique, and use of adjunctive treatment after SWL, success rates can be maximized while further reducing the already low rate of serious complications. SWL remains an excellent treatment option for calculi even in 2017.

COMPARISON BETWEEN EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY AT 120 AND 60 SHOCKWAVES PER MINUTE FOR TREATMENT OF URINARY STONES

(Purpose) It has recently been suggested that a slow delivery rate of shockwaves by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) improved treatment outcomes for urinary stones. We retrospectively analyzed the treatment outcomes of different shockwave delivery rates at 120 and 60 shockwaves per minute. (Patients and method) A total of 88 patients were treated at a fast delivery rate of 120 shockwaves per minute between July 2010 and April 2012, and 139 patients were treated at a slow delivery rate of 60 shockwaves per minute between May 2012 and May 2014 (n=227) using a Sonolith^® Praktis lithotripter. The treatment outcome of stone-free rate (SFR) after one SWL session was assessed at four weeks. (Result) SWL at 60 shockwaves per minute resulted in a significantly higher SFR compared with SWL at 120 shockwaves per minute (39.8% and 59.0%, respectively, p=0.0047), particularly for upper ureter (U1) stones (53.1% and 72.0%, respectively, p=0.028). Multivariate analysis showed that younger age, stone sizes of 10 mm or less, U1 stones, and slow delivery rate were significant predictors of a stone-free outcome. There were fewer adverse events after the delivery rate of 60 shockwaves per minute (p=0.058). (Conclusion) Our study suggests that SWL at 60 shockwaves per minute should be recommended to successfully treat urinary stones using the Sonolith^® Praktis lithotripter.

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.

A clinical nomogram to predict the successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteral calculi

PURPOSE

Although shock wave lithotripsy is dependent on patient and stone related factors, there are few reliable algorithms predictive of its success. In this study we develop a comprehensive nomogram to predict renal and ureteral stone shock wave lithotripsy outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During a 5-year period data from patients treated at our lithotripsy unit were reviewed. Analysis was restricted to patients with a solitary renal or ureteral calculus 20 mm or less. Demographic, stone, patient, treatment and 3-month followup data were collected from a prospective database. All patients were treated using the Philips Lithotron® lithotripter.

RESULTS

A total of 422 patients (69.7% male) were analyzed. Mean stone size was 52.3±39.3 mm2 for ureteral stones and 78.9±77.3 mm2 for renal stones, with 95 (43.6%) of the renal stones located in the lower pole. The single treatment success rates for ureteral and renal stones were 60.3% and 70.2%, respectively. On univariate analysis predictors of shock wave lithotripsy success, regardless of stone location, were age (p=0.01), body mass index (p=0.01), stone size (p<0.01), mean stone density (p<0.01) and skin to stone distance (p<0.01). By multivariate logistic regression for renal calculi, age, stone area and skin to stone distance were significant predictors with an AUC of 0.75. For ureteral calculi predictive factors included body mass index and stone size (AUC 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and stone parameters have been identified to create a nomogram that predicts shock wave lithotripsy outcomes using the Lithotron lithotripter, which can facilitate optimal treatment based decisions and provide patients with more accurate single treatment success rates for shock wave lithotripsy tailored to patient specific situations.

Logistic regression model for predicting stone-free rate after minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the prognostic factors associated with the treatment efficacy of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) and develop a preoperative logistic regression model for predicting the stone-free rate after the initial procedure.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 865 patients who had undergone MPCNL in our department from January 2006 to September 2009. Patient age, sex, body mass index, degree of hydronephrosis, and stone side, number, size, and location were the investigated variables. According to the treatment outcome, the patients were divided into 2 groups, those who became stone free and those who did not. Student's t test, chi-square test, and multiple logistic regression analysis were performed to determine the statistically significant variables and to develop a predictive mathematical model.

RESULTS

The stone-free rate after primary MPCNL was 80.1% (693 of 865). On univariate analysis, the stone number, size, and location and degree of hydronephrosis were identified as significant factors between the 2 groups. On multivariate analysis, they were also independent predictors of the surgical outcome. Next, a logistic regression model was developed using these variables to estimate the stone-free rate after MPCNL.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study have demonstrated that an increased stone number and size, location in a calix, staghorn calculus, and moderate to severe hydronephrosis were associated with decreased stone-free rates after MPCNL. We have developed a mathematical model for predicting the stone-free rate that will be helpful for patient counseling and surgeon decision-making regarding the management of upper urinary tract calculi.