Evaluation of emergency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones

The efficacy of early extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for the treatment of 5 to 10 mm upper ureteral stones: An observational study

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) performed in the early period (within the first 24 hours). Data of patients who underwent SWL with a diagnosis of unilateral radiopaque 5 to 10 mm upper ureteral stones were retrospectively examined. Patients were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 (early SWL) consisted of patients with SWL performed within 24 hours after the onset of colic pain (<24 hours), while group 2 (deferred SWL) comprised patients with SWL performed 24 hours or more from the onset of pain (≥24 hours). The primary endpoint of the study was planned to determine 1-month SFR in both groups. The secondary endpoint was determined to be the factor affecting SWL success. The mean age of 216 patients (130 men, 86 women) included in this study was 46.5 ± 12.1 years. SFR within 1 month was detected in 175 patients (81%). In the early SWL group, the average number of SWL sessions was fewer (1.26 vs 1.83 P = .026) and the time to the stone-free state was shorter (11 vs 15.4 days P = .044). SFR within 1 month was higher in the early SWL group (85.5% vs 71.8% P = .036). In multivariate analysis, stone size, Hounsfield Units, and early SWL were predictive factors for SWL success. Performing SWL within the first 24 hours is highly effective in patients with symptomatic 5 to 10 mm upper ureteral stones.

Prospective Evaluation of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy in Renal and Upper Ureteric Stone Treatment: Clinical Assessment and Results

INTRODUCTION

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a widely accepted non-invasive treatment for renal and upper ureteric stones smaller than 2 cm due to its safety and efficacy. Despite advancements in minimally invasive techniques, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy remains an important modality.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

This prospective observational study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ESWL in managing renal and upper ureteric stones measuring less than 2 cm in terms of stone clearance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a study conducted at a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital, 119 patients with renal and upper ureteric stones underwent extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy over a 12-month period. Data on patient demographics, stone characteristics, treatment procedures, and complications were collected. Follow-up assessments were performed at two-week intervals for up to two months post-treatment.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 39.78 years, with a mean stone size of 1.2 cm. Right kidney stones were more prevalent (61.3% [n=76]). Complications included fever (19.3% [n=23]), gross haematuria (24.3% [n=29]), and steinstrasse (21.8% [n=26]). The success rate of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy was 81.5% (n=97), with 18.5% (n=22) of patients requiring surgical intervention due to incomplete fragmentation or residual fragments >4 mm. Stone size and density played significant roles in treatment success.

CONCLUSION

Despite advancements in minimally invasive techniques, ESWL retains its significance as a noninvasive and effective treatment option for renal and upper ureteric stones smaller than 2 cm. Its success depends on various factors, including the stone site, size, and composition. ESWL offers advantages such as minimal morbidity, shorter hospital stays, and better patient compliance. Complications such as steinstrasse are manageable with conservative measures or ancillary procedures. While ESWL may be losing ground in some cases, its noninvasive nature and favourable outcomes make it a valuable option in the armamentarium for stone management.

Shock Wave Therapy in Plastic Surgery: A Review of the Current Indications

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) represents a promising, non-invasive management strategy supporting the treatment of a variety of conditions related to plastic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

This literature review aimed to give a systematic overview of current applications, its mechanism of action, and its potential to provide tangible therapies in plastic surgery.

METHODS

The databases PubMed (National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD), Embase (via Ovid [Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands]), and the Cochrane Library (Cochrane, London, UK) were searched for articles published up to June 1, 2021. Clinical studies of any design including ESWT in the context of plastic surgery were included. Two reviewers extracted data, and 46 articles were analyzed after application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Forty-six included studies (n = 1496) were categorized into the following broad themes: cellulite/body contouring/skin rejuvenation, burns/scar treatment, diabetic foot ulcers/chronic wound, and future perspectives of ESWT. Overall, applications of ESWT were heterogenous, and the majority of studies reported effectiveness of ESWT as an alternative treatment technique. Flawed methodology and differences in technical standards limit the outcome and conclusion of this review.

CONCLUSIONS

There is yet insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of any specific intervention included in this review; however, all included studies reported improvements in key outcomes. Where reported, ESWT displayed a good safety profile with no serious adverse events. Further research is needed to provide more evidence to delineate the indications of ESWT in plastic surgery.

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.

Predictors of successful emergency shock wave lithotripsy for acute renal colic

The role of emergency shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in persistent pain control in patients with ureteral stones is not well established. The aim of this study is to evaluate efficacy as well as the predicting variables for successful early SWL patients with symptomatic ureteral stones. Eighty-six patients with a persistent renal colic secondary to single ureteral stone (6–12 mm) were prospectively enrolled in this study. SWL was performed within 24 h of the onset of flank pain. Pain control and stone-free rate after emergency SWL session were 58.1% and 44.2%, respectively. Seven patients required post-SWL ureteroscopy and ureteral stent placement for uncontrolled pain. The overall 3-month stone-free rate after SWL monotherapy was 83.7%. On multivariate analysis, predictors for pain relief after emergency SWL were lower Hounsfield (HU) stone density, mild hydronephrosis (HN) at presentation and presentation during the first colic episode. Lower HU stone density was the single predictor of successful stone clearance after single emergency SWL session on multivariate analysis. In conclusion, early SWL is feasible and effective in management of ureteral stones presented by renal colic with low HU.

Acute pancreatitis with giant pancreatic pseudocyst as a complication of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: A case report and literature review

Introduction

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy has been confirmed as the least invasive and the most widely used treatment for kidney and ureteral stones. However, as with any other type of therapy, potential complications do exist.

Case presentation

Herein, we describe a 55-year-old male patient who developed symptoms of acute pancreatitis one day after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for left renal stones. The patient used to manage himself with NSAIDs till he presented to the emergency department with severe epigastric pain and tenderness due to giant pancreatic pseudocyst formation. The pseudocyst was treated by endoscopic cystogastrostomy using metallic stent with uneventful recovery. In addition, we extensively reviewed all available literature studies of pancreatitis and pancreatic pseudocyst occurring after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. We summarized all reported cases and presented them in a comprehensive table.

Discussion

Post ESWL acute pancreatitis is a rare clinical entity with only 11 reported cases. In all cases, abdominal pain was the most common symptom that occurs in less than 24h following ESWL treatment. So it should be considered in the differential diagnosis of acute abdominal pain after ESWL.

Conclusion

Although ESWL is generally considered safe and effective treatment; however, major complications have been reported to occur in less than 1% of patients. One of the extremely rare complications is the development of pancreatitis and pancreatic pseudocyst.

•

ESWL is a safe and effective treatment modality.

•

Serious complications have been reported in 1% of patients.

•

Post-ESWL acute pancreatitis is extremely rare.

•

Only 5 cases of pancreatic pseudocyst after ESWL have been reported.

•

Endoscopic cystogastrostomy approach is cost-saving, can avoid surgical complications, and offer an early hospital discharge.

Factors predictive of shockwave lithotripsy failure for ureteral stones: why we need to hurry

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study are to evaluate the prognostic factors of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with ureteric stones, and to identify which patients might directly benefit of an endoscopic treatment.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study from January 2013 and July 2016 on patients with single ureteric stone and undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). We divided patients into two groups: first group (success group) included cases resolved with SWL only, and a second group (failure group) including patients with stone not resolved by SWL and requiring an endoscopic treatment. We evaluated age, weight, height, body mass index, stone size, hydronephrosis, laterality, location, days elapsed from onset of symptoms to SWL and stone density when computed tomography was performed. In case of stone fragments >4 mm, the procedure was repeated up to a maximum of three times. SWL was considered as failed if patients had a residual stone of any size after a follow-up of 3 months or if a complication occurred.

RESULTS

274 patients completed follow-up and were enrolled in the study. Mean age was 53.22 years (standard deviation: 13.98). SWL overall success rate was 84.3% (231 patients successfully treated with shockwaves) and failure rate was 15.7% (43 patients underwent auxiliary endoscopic procedure). At the univariate analysis, we observed a statistically significant difference for hydronephrosis (P=0.006), time elapsed from symptoms onset (P=0.013), patients' age (P=0.06) and mean stone density (0.023). In the multivariate logistic regression, patients' age (OR: 1.517), and time elapsed from obstruction to SWL (OR: 3.005) were independent predictive factors for SWL failure. Furthermore, moderate and severe hydronephrosis seemed to be independent predictive factors for SWL failure, presenting an OR of 2.451 and 4.207 respectively. High stone density resulted to be a predictive factor for SWL failure (OR: 2.293 if density was higher than 1100 Hounsfield Units).

CONCLUSIONS

We report a large series of patients undergone primary SWL for ureteric stones. Our data demonstrated the role of hydronephrosis, time elapsed from obstruction onset to treatment and stone density as independent predictive factors of SWL failure.

Emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy as opposed to delayed shockwave lithotripsy for the treatment of acute renal colic due to obstructive ureteral stone: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eSWL) as first-line treatment in patients with acute colic due to obstructive ureteral stone.

METHODS

Seventy-four patients were randomized to emergency SWL within 12 hours (eSWL group) and deferred SWL later than 3 days (dSWL group). Follow-up included ultrasound, KUB (kidney-ureter-bladder) radiography and CT (computed tomography) scan at 24 hours, 7 days, 1 and 3 months from the treatment. When necessary, repeated SWL (re-SWL) or ureteroscopy (auxiliary-URS) was performed. Preoperative and postoperative data were compared and stone free rates (SFR) and efficiency quotients (EQ) were evaluated. Analyses were performed using SAS software.

RESULTS

Complete data of 70 patients were collected. 36 underwent eSWL and 34 dSWL. The mean patient age was 48.7. Mean stone size was 9.8 mm (CI 95%: 8.9-10.8). 25 (35.7%) were proximal and 45 (64.3%) distal. Mean SWL energy was 19.2 kV (CI 95%: 18.5-19.9) and mean number of shocks was 2657 (CI 95%: 2513-2802). eSWL patients needs less auxiliary-URS than dSWL patients (13.9% vs. 44.1%, P=0.039) and less re-SWL sessions (8.3% vs. 32.4%, P=0.093). SFR at 24 hours was 52.8% and 11.8% (P<0.001) and the EQ at 3 months was 79.1% and 57.5% in the eSWL and dSWL group respectively. Patients from the dSWL group spent more time in the hospital (2.21 vs. 1.36 days, P=0.046) and complication rates between the two groups were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

eSWL is a safe procedure and delivers high SFR even within 24 hours especially for <10 mm stones. It is able to reduce the number of auxiliary procedures and hospitalization.

Factors predicting success of emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eESWL) in ureteric calculi--a single centre experience from the United Kingdom (UK)

Few studies show that "emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eESWL)" reduces the incidence of ureteroscopy in patients with ureteric calculi. We assess success of eESWL and look to study and identify factors which predict successful outcome. We retrospectively studied patients presenting with their first episode of ureteric colic undergoing eESWL (within 72 h of presentation) over a 5-year period. Patient's age, gender, stone size and location, time between presentation and ESWL, number of shock waves and ESWL sessions, and Hounsfield units (HU) were recorded. 97 patients (mean age 40 years; 76 males, 21 females) were included. 71 patients were stone free after eESWL (73.2 %) (group 1) and 26 patients failed treatment and proceeded to ureteroscopy (group 2). The two groups were well matched for age and gender. Mean stone size in group 1 and 2 was 6.4 mm and 7.7 mm, respectively, (p = 0.00141). Stone location was 34, 21, and 16 in upper, middle and lower ureter in group 1 compared to 11, 5, and 10 in group 2, respectively. Mean HU in group 1 was 480 and 612 in group 2 (p value 0.0036). In group 2, significantly, more patients received treatment after 24 h compared with group 1 (38 vs 22.5 %). The number of shock waves, maximal intensity, and ESWL sessions were not significantly different in the two groups. No complications were noted. eESWL is safe and effective in patients with ureteric colic. Stone size and Hounsfield units are important factors in predicting success. Early treatment (≤24 h) minimizes stone impaction and increases the success rate of ESWL.

Effectiveness of flexible ureteroscopic stone removal for treating ureteral and ipsilateral renal stones: a single-center experience

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of simultaneous flexible ureteroscopic removal of stones (URS) for ureteral and ipsilateral renal stones and to analyze the predictive factors for renal stone-free status.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent simultaneous flexible URS of ureteral and ipsilateral renal stones from January 2010 to May 2012. All operations used a flexible ureteroscope. We identified 74 cases of retrograde intrarenal surgery and 74 ureteral stones (74 patients). Stone-free status was respectively defined as no visible stones and clinically insignificant residual stones <3 mm on a postoperative image study. Predictive factors for stone-free status were evaluated.

Results

The immediate postoperative renal stone-free rate was 70%, which increased to 83% at 1 month after surgery. The immediate postoperative ureteral stone-free rate was 100%. Among all renal stones, 15 (20.3%) were separately located in the renal pelvis, 11 (14.8%) in the upper calyx, 15 (20.3%) in the mid calyx, and 33 (44.6%) in the lower calyx. The mean cumulative stone burden was 92.22±105.75 mm². In a multivariate analysis, cumulative stone burden <100 mm² was a significant predictive factor for postoperative renal stone-free status after 1 month (p<0.01).

Conclusions

Flexible URS can be considered simultaneously for both ureteral and renal stones in selected patients. Flexible URS is a favorable option that promises high stone-free status without significant complications for patients with a stone burden <100 mm².

Usefulness of early extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in colic patients with ureteral stones

Purpose

To compare efficacy and safety between early extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (eESWL) and deferred ESWL (dESWL) in colic patients with ureteral stones and to investigate whether eESWL can play a critical role in improving treatment outcomes.

Materials and Methods

A total of 279 patients who underwent ESWL for single radio-opaque ureteral stones of 5 to 20 mm in size were included in this retrospective study. The patients were categorized into two groups according to the time between the onset of colic and ESWL: eESWL (<48 hours, n=153) and dESWL (≥48 hours, n=126). Success was defined as stone-free status as shown on a plain radiograph within 1 month of the first session.

Results

For all patients, the success rate in the eESWL group was significantly higher than that in the dESWL group. The eESWL group required significantly fewer ESWL sessions and less time to achieve stone-free status than did the dESWL group. For 241 patients with stones <10 mm, all treatment outcomes in the former group were superior to those in the latter group, but not for 38 patients with stones sized 10 to 20 mm. The superiority of eESWL over dESWL in the treatment outcomes was more pronounced for proximal ureteral stones than for mid-to-distal ureteral stones. Post-ESWL complication rates were comparable between the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, smaller stone size and a time to ESWL of <48 hours were independent predictors of success.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that eESWL in colic patients with ureteral stones is an effective and safe treatment with accelerated stone clearance.

Immediate or delayed SWL in ureteric stones: a prospective and randomized study

The objective is to compare immediate and delayed SWL as a treatment for ureter stones between 5 and 20 mm. Patients who applied to the emergency department with single, radio opaque ureteric stone of 5-20 mm size were included in the study. Patients were randomized into immediate and delayed SWL groups. SWL were carried out after pain relief in the delayed group. Maximum of three SWL sessions were applied to the patients with stones of 5 mm or bigger in diameter, leaving at least 3 days interval in-between. Stone-free rate after first session was similar in two groups. When CIRF was also considered as success, the success rate of SWL in the immediate SWL group was higher after first session (p = 0.02). Immediate SWL had a greater success rate in upper ureteric stones (p = 0.019). Overall average time required for elimination of stones was shorter in immediate SWL group than delayed SWL group (p = 0.033). The success rate after first SWL session (including CIRF) was 59 % for patients with chronic pain in the delayed group and 100 % for patients with acute pain in the immediate group. According to the hydronephrosis grade, success rates were 71 and 44.4 % for patients with grade 1 or no hydronephrosis in the immediate SWL group, and for patients with grade 2 or larger hydronephrosis in the delayed SWL group, respectively, after first SWL session. Immediate SWL insures stone-free status in a shorter time in cases with renal colicky pain and ureteral stones, particularly upper ureteral stones.

Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients

The rationale for the use of immediate shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) after a renal colic episode is to obtain maximum stone clearance in the shortest possible time with associated early detection of lithotripsy failures which can be treated with auxiliary procedures. The aim of this meta-analysis is to understand the role of this treatment option in the emergency setting as first-line treatment and to compare such an immediate procedure to a delayed one in terms of stone-free and complication rates. A bibliographic search covering the period from January 1995 to September 2010 was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Database searches yielded 48 references. This analysis is based on the seven studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria. A total of 570 participants were included. The number of participants in each survey ranged from 16 to 200 (mean 81.42). Six studies were published after 2000 and one in the 1990s. All studies reported participants' age with mean of 40.9 years, and range between 11 and 88 years. All patients presented with unilateral lithiasis, as such the number of total stones treated was 570. Mean stone diameter ranged between 6.38 and 8.45 mm. According to the logistic regression applied stone-free rates were 79 % (61-95) for the proximal ureter, 78 % (69-88) for the mid ureter, 79 % (74-84) for the distal ureter and 78 % (75-82) for overall. Stone-free rates do not evidence a statistically significant difference compared to those described in the AUA and EAU guidelines for elective management. SWL management of ureteral stones in an emergency setting is completely lacking in the international guidelines and they results disperse in the literature in few works. According to our meta-analysis, immediate SWL for a stone-induced acute renal colic seems to be a safe treatment with high success rate. This evidence will be validated by further randomized studies, with a larger series of patients.

Complications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary stones: to know and to manage them-a review

To identify the possible complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and to suggest how to manage them, the significant literature concerning SWL treatment and complications was analyzed and reviewed. Complications after SWL are mainly connected to the formation and passage of fragments, infections, the effects on renal and nonrenal tissues, and the effects on kidney function. Each of these complications can be prevented adopting appropriate measures, such as the respect of the contraindications and the recognition and the correction of concomitant diseases or infection, and using the SWL in the most efficient and safe way, tailoring the treatment to the single case. In conclusion, SWL is an efficient and relatively noninvasive treatment for urinary stones. However, as with any other type of therapy, some contraindications and potential complications do exist. The strictness in following the first could really limit the onset and danger of the appearance of others, which however must be fully known so that every possible preventive measure be implemented.