Does ureteral stenting matter for stone size? A retrospectıve analyses of 1361 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary tract stones in pediatric patients: Our 11 years of experience

Background/Aim: Urinary system stone disease creates a significant burden on the health system. Many treatment methods are available, including extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), endourological procedures, and open and laparoscopic procedures. In recent years, in parallel with technological developments, endourological devices have become more usable in the renal system. For this reason, urologists are opting for endourological procedures more frequently. ESWL is the least invasive procedure for urinary system stone disease, and it has a higher success rate in pediatric patients than in adults. In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed the data from the pediatric cases in which we used ESWL treatment in our clinic. We aimed to reveal the effectiveness of ESWL and the factors that will increase the success rate of this procedure in light of the current literature. Methods: The files of patients aged 16 years and under who underwent ESWL at the Urology Clinic of University of Health Sciences Sanliurfa Mehmet Akif Inan Training and Research Hospital between January 2010 and December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Age, gender, stone area, stone localization, number of sessions, energy and frequency used, complete stone-free status, and secondary intervention requirement were recorded. The absence of stone fragments or the presence of fragments smaller than 3 mm only in imaging after ESWL was considered a success. Results: This study included 433 pediatric patients. The mean age of the patients was calculated as 12.02 (4.67) (range: 1–16) years. The most important factors affecting the number of residual stones were stone localization (P = 0.045) and size (P < 0.001). When stone localization was compared according to patient age, the older patients were found to have a significantly higher rate of stones in the proximal ureter than in the lower calyx of the kidney (P = 0.045) and renal pelvis (P = 0.048). Conclusion: Although there are continual advances in other minimally invasive surgical methods today, ESWL is a treatment method that can be safely applied in pediatric patients. Stone size and stone localization are the two most important factors affecting its success rate.

Can we predict the need for intervention in steinstrasse following shock wave lithotripsy?

Introduction:

Steinstrasse (SS) is a known complication of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Although the majority of SS clears spontaneously, about 6% require intervention. This study was carried out to identify the factors that determine the need for intervention in SS.

Materials and Methods:

This was a retrospective study of all patients who developed steinstrasse following SWL at our center. They were divided into two groups: a) Those cleared spontaneously and b) Those required intervention. The two groups were compared with regard to demographic profile, stone factors and factors related to steinstrasse.

Results:

Out of 2436 cases of SWL, 89 (3%) formed steinstrasse. The majority of the patients (35%) who required intervention had stone sizes of 10-14 mm. Coptcoat type III steinstrasse required significantly more interventions for clearance (P = 0.001). The site and the size of the SS was not a predictor of intervention for SS.

Conclusions:

Early intervention is warranted in patients with steinstrasse where the lead fragment is >5 mm (Coptcoat type III).

Ureteral stenting can be a negative predictor for successful outcome following shock wave lithotripsy in patients with ureteral stones

Purpose

To evaluate ureteral stenting as a negative predictive factor influencing ureteral stone clearance and to estimate the probability of one-session success in shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) patients with a ureteral stone.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 1,651 patients who underwent their first SWL. Among these patients, 680 had a ureteral stone measuring 4–20 mm and were thus eligible for our study. The 57 patients who underwent ureteral stenting during SWL were identified. Maximal stone length (MSL), mean stone density (MSD), skin-to-stone distance (SSD), and stone heterogeneity index (SHI) were determined by pre-SWL noncontrast computed tomography.

Results

After propensity score matching, 399 patients were extracted from the total patient cohort. There were no significant differences between stenting and stentless groups after matching, except for a higher one-session success rate in the stentless group (78.6% vs. 49.1%, p=0.026). In multivariate analysis, shorter MSL, lower MSD, higher SHI, and absence of a stent were positive predictors for one-session success in patients who underwent SWL. Using cutoff values of MSL and MSD obtained from receiver operator curve analysis, in patients with a lower MSD (≤784 HU), the success rate was lower in those with a stent (61.1%) than in those without (83.5%) (p=0.001). However, in patients with a higher MSL (>10 mm), the success rate was lower in those with a stent (23.6%) than in those without (52.2%) (p=0.002).

Conclusions

Ureteral stenting during SWL was a negative predictor of one-session success in patients with a ureteral stone.

Impact of ureteric stent on outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: A propensity score analysis

INTRODUCTION

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is one of the most frequently performed procedures in patients with urolithiasis. For ureter-localized stones, SWL is often preceded by a double J stent insertion. However, fear of serious complications, including sepsis associated with stents, is often expressed. The following study assessed the impact of stent insertions on the results of SWL in patients with ureteric stones.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study group consisted of 411 ureteric stone patients who were treated with SWL from January 2010 to December 2014. In 60 cases, treatment was preceded by ureteric stent insertion. A propensity scoring system was used to pair non-stented patients with the stented group. Success rates were assessed and compared using the chi-squared test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the influence of particular variables on the stone-free rate.

RESULTS

The overall success rate was 82.2%. After matching, the success rate of the stented group was not significantly different from the control group (85.0% vs. 83.3% respectively, p = 0.80). The mean number of sessions was higher in the stented group (1.88 per patient). Stones located in the lower part of the ureter have the greatest chance of being successfully treated.

CONCLUSIONS

The double J stent has no influence on the outcome of SWL treatment. In view of the greater likelihood of having additional sessions, this approach should be reserved for selected cases.