Which is more important in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of solitary renal stones: stone location or stone burden?

What Is the Ideal Treatment for 20-30 mm Kidney Stones? Comparative Outcomes of 1197 Patients

Background: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL), and standard-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (stPNL) for the treatment of 20-30 mm kidney stones. Methods: The records of 1197 patients (SWL = 149, RIRS = 205, mPNL = 525, and stPNL = 318) from 8 centers were reviewed retrospectively. Four procedures were compared for stone-free rates (SFRs), auxiliary treatment, and associated complications. Results: Initial SFRs were 43.6%, 54.6%, 86.7%, and 87.7% in SWL, RIRS, mPNL, and stPNL, respectively (P < .001), whereas the final SFRs were 71.8%, 80%, 90.5%, and 89.6% (P < .001). The rate of auxiliary treatment in the groups was 38.3%, 26.8%, 5%, and 4.4%, respectively (P < .001). The initial and final SFRs in the mPNL and stPNL groups were higher than those in SWL and RIRS groups (P < .001). The rate for auxiliary treatment was lower in the mPNL and stPNL groups (P < .001). The operation time was longer in the RIRS group (P = .005). According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, the complication rate in the SWL group was lower than that in the surgical approaches (P < .001); however, no statistical difference was detected between RIRS, mPNL, and stPNL groups. mPNL and stPNL had a higher success rate than RIRS or SWL for treating 20-30 mm kidney stones. Conclusion: In the treatment of 2-3 cm renal stones, RIRS and PNL were more effective than SWL to obtain a better SFR and less auxiliary treatment rate. Compared with RIRS, mPNL and stPNL provided a higher SFR with similar complication rates.

Is extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) still suitable for >1.5 cm intrarenal stones? Data analysis of 1902 SWLs

PURPOSE

According to the American Urological Association and European Association of Urology guidelines, shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is the least-invasive treatment option for kidney stones smaller than 2 cm. However, it is well known that SWL stone-free rates (SFR) decline as stone size increases. We sought to evaluate whether the size limit of 1.5 cm could be a better predictor of success after a single SWL session than current recommendations.

METHODS

Data from an SWL-dedicated center were prospectively scrutinized according to stone locations and sizes. Information on patients' demography, lithotripsy parameters, and outcomes was evaluated by multivariate analysis among 1902 SWLs.

RESULTS

The overall SFR was 70.8% (1347/1902). SFRs according to stone size were <1 cm: 73.8% (825/1118), 1-1.5 cm: 70.4% (401/569) and >1.5 cm: 56.2% (121/215); and according to calculi location were lower pole (LP) 64.4% (398/618), mid pole 73.8% (339/459), upper pole 73.8% (273/370) and renal pelvis 74.1% (337/455). Multivariate analysis revealed better SFR independent better SFR in <1.5 cm (p < 0.01), and non-LP stones (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

SWL is an effective treatment modality for kidney stones. The single session reached up to 74.8% SFRs (range 70.8%-74.8%) when indicated for intrarenal non LP stones smaller than 1.5 cm. Patients with stones >1.5 cm or >1 cm located in the LP should be counseled on the lower SFRs after a single SWL session.

Factors influencing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy efficiency for optimal patient selection

Introduction

Current literature suggests various predictors related to the stone and patient, which could influence stone fragmentation and clearance rates.

Aim

To establish clinical characteristics of stone disease for patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) which may predict the success of the procedure.

Material and methods

One hundred and nine patients with renal stone disease diagnosed by non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) who underwent ESWL between January 2015 and December 2019 were included in the study. Endpoints: patient being stone free (SF) or when < 4 mm fragments were detected. Age, gender, location, skin-to-stone distance, maximum stone length, stone volume, stone surface area, mean stone Hounsfield units (HU) and highest HU score were explored in uni- and multivariate regression analysis.

Results

Stone size revealed the highest prognostic power for ESWL failure, where OR for stone volume and stone surface area were 1.06 (1.03–1.10) and 1.04 (1.02–1.06), respectively (all p < 0.01) while a tendency was observed for skin-to-stone distance 1.02 (1.00–1.03). The amount of energy applied during the procedure to one cubic millimeter of stone volume (SMLI/stone volume) was predictive for treatment success (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.41–0.87, p < 0.01). Stone volume (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.00–1.14, p = 0.01) and stone surface area (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01–1.06, p = 0.02) remained as statistically significant prognostic factors for treatment failure.

Conclusions

Both greater stone volume and stone surface area, as well as lower power delivered per stone volume unit during the ESWL procedure, were found to be significant factors and could be useful to predict treatment failure.

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.

Using a three-dimensional computer assisted stone volume estimates to evaluate extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of kidney stones

This study describes and evaluates the use of non-contrast enhanced computerized tomography (NCCT) before and after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). Computer measured stone volume was used as an exact measurement for treatment response. 81 patients received SWL of kidney stones at Herlev Hospital between April 2013 and January 2014 and follow-up was possible in 77 (95 %) patients. NCCT was used before and after treatment. Treatment response was expressed as a reduction of the stone volume. Stone characteristics as the stone volumes, HU, SSD and localization were measured by radiologist using a vendor non-specific computer program. Complications, patient characteristics and additional treatment were registered. On average, 5858 shocks were given each patient. The follow-up NCCT was performed 24 days after treatment. It was possible to calculate the stone volume in 88 % of the patients-the remaining 12 % it was not possible due to stone disintegration. The stone free rate was 22 %. The average relative reduction in stone burden was 62 %. Only 8 % of the patients were radiological non-responders. Steinstrasse was observed in 13 (17 %) and 28 (36 %) patients had additional treatment performed. Irradiation dose per NCCT was 2.6 mSv. Stone volume could be calculated in most patients. The relative reduction in stone burden after treatment was 62 %. The stone volume was redundant when evaluating stone free patients, but in cases of partial response it gave an exact quantification, to be used in the further management and follow-up of the patients.

Ultramini nephrostomy tract combined with flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of multiple renal calculi in paediatric patients

Purpose

To assess the safety and efficacy of an ultramini nephrostomy tract, which we were using for the first time, combined with flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) in the treatment of pediatric patients with multiple renal calculi.

Materials and Methods

Twenty pediatric patients (age, ≤6 years) underwent ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) combined with flexible URS. The group had multiple renal calculi, which were bilateral in 3 cases and were located in a total of 23 sites. The calculi were located in 2 calyces in 10 cases, scattered in more than 2 calyces in 7 cases, and limited to 1 calyx in 3 cases. The average patient age was 37.35 months (range, 14-68 months). The average stone diameter was 2.0 cm (range, 1-3.0 cm). In all patients, an ultramini nephrostomy tract was established under ultrasound guidance (dilated to F10) with simultaneous sheath placement. The flexible URS was placed into the collecting system during holmium laser lithotripsy.

Results

When ultramini PCNL was combined with flexible ureterorenoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy, the complete stone-free rate was 87% (20/23). The average level of hemoglobin decreased to 1.0 g/dL after the operation. No blood transfusions were needed. Levels of blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and C-reactive protein were not significantly different before and after the operation. The average duration of hospitalization was approximately 4.85 days, and all cases were followed up for 6 to 12 months. No complications were found.

Conclusions

Ultramini PCNL combined with flexible ureterorenoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy is a safe and effective treatment for children with multiple renal calculi.

Is Micropercutaneous Nephrolithotomy Technique Really Efficacicous for the Treatment of Moderate Size Renal Calculi? Yes

OBJECTIVE

To present our clinical experiences with micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of moderate-sized renal calculi from a single center.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the patients with moderate-sized renal calculi who underwent micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy between December 2012 and Septermber 2013.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients and 70 renal units underwent microperc procedure. Mean age of patients was 41.4 ± 18.8. The mean stone size was 122 ± 83 mm(2). The operations were performed under spinal anesthesia in 89.7% of the patients. Stone-free rate was 95.7 % (67/70). Clinically significant residual fragments were observed in three patients. The average duration of operation and mean fluoroscopy time was 40 ± 23 min and 108 ± 72 s, respectively. The mean postoperative drop in hemoglobin was 0.95 ± 0.7 while no patient required blood transfusion. Patients were discharged after an average hospitalization time of 27.5 ± 12.4 h. A total of 4 complications (5.7%), including urinary tract infection (Clavien I) in one patient and renal colics requiring stent insertion (Clavien IIIa) in three patients, were observed postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Microperc technique is safe, feasible, and efficacious. We suggest that micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy should be considered for the treatment of moderate-sized renal stones as an alternative to SWL and RIRS failures and also may be considered even primarily.

Simultaneous vs staged treatment of urolithiasis in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy

AIM: To assess the outcomes of men treated for urolithiasis at the time of radical prostatectomy.

METHODS: From 1991 to 2010, 22 patients were retrospectively identified who were treated simultaneously (n = 10) at radical prostatectomy, or (n = 12) within 120 d prior to prostatectomy, for urolithiasis. Clinical characteristics were reviewed including: type of prostatectomy and stone surgery, location and amount of stone burden, perioperative change in hemoglobin and creatinine, stent frequency, total hospital d, stone-free rates, additional stone procedures and complications. Long-term functional outcomes including stress urinary incontinence and bladder neck contracture were reported. Differences between cohorts (simultaneous vs staged treatment) were assessed.

RESULTS: Among men undergoing radical prostatectomy, primary stone procedures included 12 ureteroscopy, 6 shock wave lithotripsy, 2 open nephrolithotomy and 2 percutaneous nephrolithotomy. In staged shock wave lithotripsy there were 4 complications and 3 additional procedures vs 1 (P = 0.5) and 0 (P = 0.2) in the simultaneous cohort. Meanwhile in staged ureteroscopy there were 5 complications and 1 additional procedure vs 1 (P = 0.2) and 1 (P = 0.9) in the simultaneous cohort. Additional procedures for residual stones was greater among patients with asymptomatic upper tract calculi 3 (60%) relative to patients with symptomatic stones 2 (13%; P = 0.02). Likewise, patients with proximal or multiple calculi had a greater total hospital days 5.5 vs 4.1 (P = 0.04), additional procedures 6 vs 0 (P = 0.04) and lower stone-free rates 39% vs 89% (P = 0.02) relative to men with distal stones. Finally, there was no difference in the incidence of bladder neck contracture (P = 0.4) or stress urinary incontinence (P = 0.7) between cohorts.

CONCLUSION: Ureteroscopic treatment of symptomatic distal urolithiasis at radical prostatectomy appears to be safe and efficacious with a low rate of adverse postoperative outcomes.

Impact of official technical training for urologists on the efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy

To evaluate the efficacy of company-initiated training of urologists on shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment results, we retrospectively assessed 602 patients who underwent SWL in Nagoya City University Hospital between January 2004 and June 2011 using Lithotripter S (Dornier MedTech, Japan). Training-provided by a training specialist of the company in June 2010-focused on the targeting of renal and proximal ureter stones with a combination of radiography and ultrasonography (US). The stretcher wedges were positioned in the semi-prone position or the semi-supine position for middle and distal ureter stones, respectively. Success rates between 519 pre-training treatments and 83 post-training treatments were compared. Patient age and stone location, burden, number, and composition did not significantly differ between pre- and post-training. Training improved the overall success rate from 66.3 to 87.2 % (P < 0.0001). The mean number of SWL treatments decreased from 1.8 ± 1.8 to 1.4 ± 1.3 (P = 0.01). The first SWL treatment success rate increased from 67.1 to 83.7 % (P = 0.002), and the need for multiple treatments decreased. The frequency of detection of renal and proximal ureter stones by both radiography and US increased from 10.5 % before training to 58.2 % after training (P < 0.0001). Significant factors for successful SWL were determined to be training and prone position for distal ureter stones by multivariate analysis and ultrasonic detection for renal and proximal ureter stones by univariate analysis. Skills in targeting stones using ultrasonography and selecting the proper therapeutic position are essential for improving the success rate of stone removal.

Management of 1-2 cm renal stones

INTRODUCTION

The preferred treatment of >1cm stone is shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), while that of stone <2 cm is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), but treatment of 1-2 cm renal stones is a controversial issue. We searched the literature to present a comprehensive review on this group.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pubmed search of literature was done using the appropriate key words. We separately discussed the literature in lower polar and non lower polar stone groups.

RESULTS

For non lower polar renal stones of 1-2 cm, SWL is preferred approach, while for the lower polar stones; literature favors the use of PCNL. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is emerging as a promising technique for these calculi.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of renal stone disease depends on stone and patient related, as well as on renal anatomical factors. Treatment should be individualized according to site of stone and available expertise.