Meta-analysis of the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs vs. opioids for SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters

Erector spinae plane block prior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy decreases fluoroscopy time and promise a comfortable procedure for renal stones: A prospective randomized study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and intramuscular (i.m.) diclofenac sodium in regard to pain management and impact on stone-free status in patients undergoing SWL.

PATIENTS AND MATERIALS

The study included patients who underwent SWL for kidney stones in our institution. The patients were randomly assigned to the ESPB (Group 1: n = 31) and i.m. 75 mg diclofenac sodium (Group 2: n = 30) groups. The demographic data of the patients, fluoroscopy time during SWL, number of need of targeting, total shocks given, voltage, stone free rates (SFR), analgesy method, number of SWL sessions, VAS score, stone location, maximum stone size, stone volume and Hounsfield unit (HU) were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were included the study. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups according to stone size, volume and density, SWL duration, total shocks given, voltage, BMI, stone-free status and stone location. Fluoroscopy time and number of need for stone targeting were significantly lower in group 1 than group 2 (p = 0.002, p = 0.021, respectively). The VAS score was significantly lower for group 1 compared to group 2 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that the VAS score was lower in the ESPB group compared to i.m. diclofenac sodium group and although it was not statistically significant, we achieved a higher rate of stone-free status in the first session in ESPB group. Most importantly, the patients in the ESPB group were exposed to less fluoroscopy and radiation.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL)

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a minimally invasive technique for the fragmentation of urinary tract stones using shock waves under fluoroscopic and/or ultrasound guidance. ESWL results depend on the indication (stone size/composition, clinical context) and also on how it is performed. The stone structure, nature and density (Hounsfield units; evaluated by CT without contrast agent) influence the fragmentation achieved by ESWL. The upper size limit of kidney stones has been lowered to 15mm (1.68cm3) due to the increased risk of steinstrasse with larger sizes and the potential need of anesthesia and ureteral stenting. Conversely, the development of endourological technologies allows a finer stone fragmentation and/or better elimination, thus reducing the risk of steinstrasse and decreasing the potential number of sessions or additional interventions. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendations method (CPR) and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis [EAU 2022]) and their adaptability to the French context.

[Evaluation of protocols on the use of analgesics for pain management in patients with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL)]

La douleur ressentie au cours d'une séance de lithotritie extracorporelle (LEC) est le facteur limitant le plus important de cette technique. Le but de notre travail était de comparer l'efficacité des différents types d'analgésiques utilisés pour le contrôle de la douleur pendant les séances de LEC. Nous avons mené une étude prospective colligeant 300 patients présentant une lithiase urinaire justifiant un traitement par LEC. Les patients ont été répartis de façon randomisée en trois groupes: le groupe I, incluant 100 patients ayant reçu 2cc de sérum physiologique en IM (intra musculaire) (placebo), le groupe II regroupant 100 patients ayant reçu 100mg de kétoprofène en IM tandis que le groupe III colligeant 100 patients ayant eu une application locale d'une crème contenant la lidocaïne et la prilocaïne. L'échelle visuelle analogique (EVA) a servi à évaluer la douleur à 10 minutes et à la fin de la séance. L'EVA moyenne à 10 minutes et à la fin de la LEC étaient respectivement de 3,7 et 4,91. Aucune différence significative n'a été trouvée entre les trois groupes concernant: les données épidémiologiques (âge, sexe, IMC, antécédents pathologies) et les caractéristiques du calcul (côté, taille, localisation, présence ou non de sonde double J). L'interruption précoce de la séance de LEC a été notée chez 11 patients du groupe I, avec une différence significative par rapport aux autres groupes (p=0,003). L'EVA à 10 minutes et à la fin de séance de LEC, était statistiquement plus élevée dans le groupe I par rapport aux groupes II et III (p < 0,001). Aussi, la LEC était nettement plus efficace dans les groupes (II et III) comparativement au groupe I (p<0,001). L'utilisation d'un traitement antalgique est nécessaire lors de la séance de lithotritie extracorporelle. Les deux molécules antalgiques évaluées ont montré un bon contrôle de la douleur ainsi qu'une augmentation de l'efficacité du traitement par lithotritie.

Analgesia for patients undergoing shockwave lithotripsy for urinary stones - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first line treatment modality for a significant proportion of patients with upper urinary tracts stones. Simple analgesics, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are all suitable agents but the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents is uncertain.

Objectives

To determine the efficacy of the different types of analgesics used for the control of pain during SWL for urinary stones.

Materials and Methods

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group’s Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and also hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles (Figure-1). Randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) comparing the use of any opioid, simple analgesic or NSAID during SWL were included. These were compared with themselves, each-other or placebo. We included any route or form of administration (bolus, PCA). We excluded agents that were used for their sedative qualities. Data were extracted and assessed for quality independently by three reviewers. Meta-analyses have been performed where possible. When not possible, descriptive analyses of variables were performed. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and measurements on continuous scales are reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Overall, we included 9 RCTs (539 participants from 6 countries). Trial agents included 7 types of NSAIDs, 1 simple analgesic and 4 types of opioids. There were no significant differences in clinical efficacy or tolerability between a simple analgesic (paracetamol) and an NSAID (lornoxicam). When comparing the same simple analgesic with an opioid (tramadol), both agents provided safe and effective analgesia for the purpose of SWL with no significant differences. There were no significant differences in pain scores between NSAIDs or opioids in three studies. Adequate analgesia could be achieved more often for opioids than for NSAIDs (RR 0.358; 95% CI 043 to 0.77, P=0.0002) but consumed doses of rescue analgesia were similar between NSAIDs and opioids in two studies (P=0.58, >0.05). In terms of tolerability, there is no difference in post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) between the groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.17, P=0.55). One study compared outcomes between two types of NSAIDs (diclofenac versus dexketoprofen). There were no significant differences in any of our pre-defined outcomes measures.

Conclusion

Simple analgesics, NSAIDs and opioids can all reduce the pain associated with shock wave lithotripsy to a level where the procedure is tolerated. Whilst there are no compelling differences in safety or efficacy of simple analgesics and NSAIDs, analgesia is described as adequate more often for opioids than NSAIDs.

Ultrasonography Is Not Inferior to Fluoroscopy to Guide Extracorporeal Shock Waves during Treatment of Renal and Upper Ureteric Calculi: A Randomized Prospective Study

Objective

To investigate whether the visualization modality (ultrasound or fluoroscopy) used during shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) affects the clinical outcome in those instances where both imaging modalities are optional.

Methods

Between November 2014 and July 2016, 114 patients with radiopaque upper urinary tract calculi were randomly assigned to an ultrasound- or fluoroscopy-guided SWL group in a prospective, open-label, single-center study. A standardized SWL protocol was used. The stone-free rate and the positive outcome rate (stone-free or asymptomatic residual fragments ≤ 4 mm) were compared.

Results

The stone-free rate was 52% in the ultrasound-guided group compared to 42% in the fluoroscopy-guided group (p = 0.06) and the positive outcome rate was 79% in the ultrasound-guided group compared to 70% in the fluoroscopy-guided group (p = 0.28). These results were not significantly different but proved to be noninferior based on a Wilson confidence interval of independent proportions (noninferiority limit 10%). The mean number of SWL sessions was not significantly different (p = 0.4).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that the clinical results of ultrasound-guided SWL were not inferior to the results of fluoroscopy-guided SWL, while no ionizing radiation is needed.

Comparison of Different Analgesia Drug Regimens for Pain Control During Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Stones: A Randomized Control Study

INTRODUCTION

With the increased use of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), the management of urolithiasis has become much convenient for the patients and the health care professionals alike. However, associated with the procedure is the common complaint of pain. No agreed upon pain management strategy has yet been developed for the procedure. We compared the effect of different analgesia drug regiments for pain control.

METHODOLOGY

A randomised controlled trial was carried out in Shifa International Hospital from between July 2015 to January 2016. A total of 135 patients were divided into three groups; group A received 30 g lidocaine 2% gel applied locally on corresponding lumber area 30 minutes before the procedure, group B received oral naproxen sodium 550 mg 45 minutes before the procedure, and group C received both oral naproxen and lidocaine gel. Patients were supplemented with intravenous nalbuphine during the procedure. The pain was assessed with 0-10 visual analogue scale. Both pre-procedure and post-procedure pain score was measured.

RESULTS

Among 135 patients, 105 (77.8%) were male and 29 (21.5%) were female with mean age of 38.7 ± 1.31 years. There was no difference of mean pain score or need for supplemental intravenous nalbuphine between groups B and C but there was significantly decreased mean pain score and need for supplemental intravenous nalbuphine in groups B and C in comparison with group A.

CONCLUSION

The use of oral naproxen sodium with or without the addition of lidocaine gel during ESWL is a promising option for pain management during the procedure with significant improvement in comparison with lidocaine gel alone.

Pharmacology of Acetaminophen, Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs, and Steroid Medications: Implications for Anesthesia or Unique Associated Risks

Acetaminophen, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and corticosteroids, historically used in perioperative management, are potent analgesic medications. They primarily inhibit the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzyme, decreasing the synthesis of prostaglandins, and modulating pain and temperature. Acetaminophen does not inhibit this synthesis at the inflammatory site. The primary mechanism of action of corticosteroids involves regulation of nuclear expression of genes involved in inflammatory pathways and other systemic effects. Metaanalyses have added purposeful perioperative indications, clarified misconceptions, and established protocols for administering these drugs. Some indications, doses, clinical considerations, and adverse effects need to be further studied.

Shockwave Lithotripsy Practice Pattern Variations Among and Between American and Canadian Urologists: In Support of Guidelines

PURPOSE

Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a widely utilized form of treatment for urolithiasis. There are new evidence-based recommendations regarding pre-SWL patient work-up and the performance of SWL. The purpose of this study is to determine practice patterns for SWL and to determine if regional variation exists between Canada and the United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 19-question survey was prepared. Canadian urologists were surveyed through e-mail correspondence. In the United States, members of the Endourologic Society and members of two large stone management groups were surveyed. Canadian and American results were compared using the chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Ninety-four Canadian urologists and 187 U.S. urologists completed the survey. Practice patterns differed between countries. Intravenous sedation was more commonly used in Canada (Canada 94.7% vs United States 17.9%, p < 0.001); routine antibiotics were more commonly given in United States (Canada 2.1% vs United States 78.1%, p < 0.001); a shock rate of 2 Hz was more common in Canada (Canada 76.6% vs United States 16.2%, p < 0.00001); rate of discontinuing ASA for renal and ureteral stone treatment was higher in the United States (renal Canada 88.3% vs United States 95.7%, p < 0.02; ureteral Canada 62.4% vs 90.3%, p < 0.0001); and ureteral stents were more commonly used if treating a large stone or patients with solitary kidneys in the United States (large stones Canada 58.2% vs United States 88.8%, p = 0.0001; solitary kidney Canada 50.6% vs 66.3%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the absence of standardization of SWL. Significant regional differences exist in practice patterns and performance of SWL between Canadian and American urologists.

Office-based stone management

As hospital resources are becoming strained, ambulatory surgical centers and day hospitals are being increasingly utilized. For the urologist, a working knowledge of local anesthetics and conscious sedation protocols are important, as many surgical kidney-stone procedures can be performed without general anesthetic. With any anesthesia, the key goal is to maximize patient comfort while minimizing respiratory depression and avoiding prolonged sedation. When using these medications, a working knowledge of emergency reversal, ventilation (bag mask/laryngeal mask airway/intubation), and cardiopulmonary resuscitation is recommended.

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.

Audiovisual distraction reduces pain perception during shockwave lithotripsy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Lithotripsy is an established method to fragment kidney stones that can be performed without general anesthesia in the outpatient setting. Discomfort and/or noise, however, may deter some patients. It has been demonstrated that audiovisual distraction (AV) can reduce sedoanalgesic requirements and improve patient satisfaction in nonurologic settings, but to our knowledge, this has not been investigated with lithotripsy. This randomized controlled trial was designed to test the hypothesis that AV distraction can reduce perceived pain during lithotripsy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients in the study received identical analgesia before a complete session of lithotripsy on a fixed-site Storz Modulith SLX F2 lithotripter. Patients were randomized to two groups: One group (n=61) received AV distraction via a wall-mounted 32″ (82 cm) television with wireless headphones; the other group (n=57) received no AV distraction. The mean intensity of treatment was comparable in both groups. Patients used a visual analogue scale (0-10) to record independent pain and distress scores and a nonverbal pain score was documented by the radiographer during the procedure (0-4).

RESULTS

In the group that received AV distraction, all measures of pain perception were statistically lower. The patient-reported pain score was reduced from a mean of 6.1 to 2.4 (P<0.0001), and the distress score was reduced from a mean of 4.4 to 1.0 (P=0.0001). The mean nonverbal score recorded by the radiographer was reduced from 1.5 to 0.5 (<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

AV distraction significantly lowered patients' reported pain and distress scores. This correlated with the nonverbal scores reported by the radiographer. We conclude that AV distraction is a simple method of improving acceptance of lithotripsy and optimizing treatment.

Drugs for pain management in shock wave lithotripsy

Objective. With this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the main aspects and currently used drugs for analgesia in shockwave lithotripsy. Evidence Acquisition. We reviewed current literature, concentrating on newer articles and high-quality reviews in international journals. Results. No standardized protocols for pain control in SWL exist, although it is crucial for treatment outcome. General and spinal anaesthesia show excellent pain control but are only recommended for selected cases. The newer opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are able to deliver good analgesia. Interest in inhalation anaesthesia with nitrous oxide, local anaesthesia with deep infiltration of the tissue, and dermal anaesthesia with EMLA or DMSO has recently rekindled, showing good results in terms of pain control and a favourable side effect profile. Tamsulosin and paracetamol are further well-known drugs being currently investigated. Conclusion. Apart from classically used drugs like opioids and NSARs, medicaments like nitrous oxide, paracetamol, DMSA, or refined administration techniques for infiltration anaesthesia show a good effectiveness in pain control for SWL.

Efficacy of local subcutaneous anesthesia versus intramuscular opioid sedation in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: a randomized study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of local subcutaneous (SC) anesthesia compared with intramuscular (IM) opioid sedation during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in a randomized study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

After informed consent was obtained, 125 patients with urolithiasis who were scheduled for SWL were included in the study. The patients in each treatment session were randomized to receive either IM meperidine (group A) or SC infiltration of 10 mL 2% lidocaine and 10 mL 0.5% bupivacaine at the area of shockwave entry (group B). Degree of pain was rated by the patient using a five-point visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The study included 88 (70.4%) men and 37 (29.6%) women with a mean age of 47.6 ± 12.5 years and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 28.16 ± 4.67 kg/m2. Of the patients, 89, 26, and 10 received a single, two, or more than two treatment sessions, respectively (176 sessions). Maximum stone length was 10.68 ± 5.12 mm. Pretreatment stent placement was performed in 17 (13.6%) patients (28 sessions). Group A comprised 89 treatment sessions while 87 were involved in group B. Both groups were similar. Supplemental intrvenous sedation was needed in two (2.5%) and four (4.6%) sessions in groups A and B, respectively. VAS was not different between both groups (P = 0.063). Patients with pretreatment stent placement had significantly lower VAS score compared with patients without stents (P = 0.012). Sex and BMI had no impact on the VAS score.

CONCLUSIONS

Local SC anesthesia alone is effective for analgesic purposes during extracorporeal SWL. Sex, age, and BMI have no relation to analgesia requirement.