Treating lower pole renal stones: in defence of shock wave lithotripsy

Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus shock wave lithotripsy for the medium-sized renal stones

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Miniperc) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for medium-sized renal stones.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was performed in February 2020 using the Pubmed, Web of Science and Embase. The outcome measurements between two procedures were stone-free rates (SFR), complication rates, operative time, hospitalization stay time, re-treatment rate, auxiliary procedures rate and efficiency quotient. Results were pooled by Review Manager version 5.3 software.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seven studies on 936 patients (N.=471 for SWL and N.=465 for Miniperc) were included. Miniperc was associated with a higher SFR (OR: 0.25; P<0.00001). In addition, we performed a subgroup analyses for pediatric renal stones and lower pole stones, pooled results also favored Miniperc for higher SFR. SWL was associated with higher auxiliary procedure (OR: 3.32; P<0.00001), higher re-treatment rate (OR: 19.19; P<0.00001) and lower EQ (OR: 0.18; P=0.0003) compared with Miniperc. Besides, SWL was associated with a lower complication rate (OR: 0.36; P=0.0001), shorter operative time (WMD: -34.01; P<0.00001), fluoroscopy time (WMD: -134.48; P<0.00001) and hospital time (WMD: -49.11; P<0.00001) compared with Miniperc.

CONCLUSIONS

Miniperc offers a significantly higher SFR, lower auxiliary procedure and re-treatment rate, but SWL was associated with fewer complications.

Effects of diuretic administration on outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The present systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted for investigating the effect of diuretics on the outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for the treatment of urinary stones. We performed searches of PubMed, Web of science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases from inception to November 2019. RCTs were selected for assessing the effects of diuretics on fragmentation and clearance of urinary stones. The search strategy and study selection process were performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, intervention groups experienced significant improvements in fragmentation compared with the control groups (risk ratio [RR] = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05–1.03, P = 0.02). However, stone clearance did not significantly differ between the intervention and control groups (RR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.97–1.56, P = 0.08). The total numbers of shocks and sessions required were significantly reduced by the use of diuretics. Diuretics significantly enhance stone fragmentation for patients undergoing SWL. However, the improvement in stone clearance appears to be insignificant.

Miniperc vs Shockwave Lithotripsy for Average-Sized, Radiopaque Lower Pole Calculi: A Prospective Randomized Study

Introduction: To detect safety and feasibility of miniperc and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for treatment of average-sized (1-2 cm), radiopaque lower pole calculi in a prospective randomized manner. Patients and Methods: In the period from January 2014 to June 2015, 150 patients were attached to this study with single lower pole radiopaque stone ranging from 10 to 20 mm. Patients were divided randomly into two groups using computer-generated randomization in an equal manner. First group patients were subjected to miniperc procedure, while second group patients underwent SWL. Patient's characters, stones' characters, fluoroscopic time, operative time, blood transfusion, hospital stay, retreatment, auxiliary procedure (AP), and complications using modified Clavien grading are tabulated and analyzed. Results: This study included two equal groups with 75 patients in each group. With regard to age (37.75 ± 11.25 vs 40.55 ± 10.55), body mass index (26.92 ± 2.26 vs 27.29 ± 2.87), and stone size (1.55 ± 0.28 vs 1.57 ± 0.26), there was no significant statistical difference in both groups. Stone-free rate (SFR) (76% vs 96%), operative time (44.81 ± 7.06 vs 93.37 ± 12.29 minutes), fluoroscopy time (53 ± 2.45 vs 180 ± 7.31 seconds), hospital stay (5.72 ± 1.01 vs 45.19 ± 8.48 hour), and blood transfusion were significantly more in the miniperc group. Retreatment rate (45.3% vs 2.7%) and AP (24% vs 4%) were significantly greater in the SWL group. Conclusion: SWL is less invasive than percutaneous stone removal, but it is also less effective for lower pole radiopaque calculi. Miniperc has better SFR and lower auxiliary and retreatment rates; however, it resulted in more drawbacks.

Optimal management of lower pole stones: the direction of future travel

INTRODUCTION

Kidney stone disease is increasing worldwide with its most common location being in the lower pole. A clear strategy for effective management of these stones is essential in the light of ever increasing choice, effectiveness, and complications of different treatment options.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This review identifies the latest and clinically relevant publications focused on optimal management of lower pole stones.

RESULTS

We present an up-to-date European Association of Urology and American Urological Association algorithm for lower pole stones, risks and benefits of different treatments, and changing landscape with the miniaturization of percutaneous stone treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Available literature seems to be deficient on quality of life, patient centered decision making, and cost analysis of optimal management with no defined standard of 'stone free rate', all of which are critical in any surgical consultation and outcome analysis.

Comparative Study of Lithotripsy and PCNL for 11-15 mm Lower Caliceal Calculi In Community Health Hospital

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is not a popular procedure in smaller sized calculi due to its invasive nature, complications and need for anesthesia. Small sized lower caliceal calculi are generally treated by ESWL but have significantly less clearance rate in spite of several sittings. Here we want to study the efficacy and safe of both procedures in 11 to 15 mm lower caliceal calculi.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present comparative study of lithotripsy and PCNL in 11-15 mm lower caliceal calculi in our hospital. Total 156 patients were studied 78 underwent lithotripsy and 78 underwent PCNL. We compared results in the form of clearance rate, the number of settings needed, hospital stay, need for anesthesia, blood transfusion rate, chest complication, the incidence of sepsis, the need for another procedure, need for stenting in either group.

RESULTS

We found a 67.95% clearance rate in SWL group and 97.43% clearance rate in PCNL group. Hospital stay was minimum in SWL group and was 46 hours in PCNL group. The procedure time was 42 minutes in PCNL and it was 114 mins in SWL (considering all settings). The rest of the complications like chest complication, sepsis and bleeding were negligible due to the small size of calculi.

CONCLUSION

In a small sized LPC calculi, PCNL is gaining increased popularity due to lower complication and high safety and complete clearance rate. It is wide accepted by society as the patient is totally stone free at the end of the procedure. SWL is less invasive but less effective and has given significant discomfort to patients.

Percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy for the passage of lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy

BACKGROUND

Lower pole kidney stones typically have poor rates of spontaneous clearance from the body. Some studies have suggested that diuresis, percussion and inversion therapy could be beneficial for people with lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy. There is however controversy about the relative benefits, harms, and efficacy of these interventions for the management of lower pole kidney stones.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the benefits and harms of percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy to facilitate the passage of lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register up to 27 November 2013 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at the benefits and harms of percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy for aiding passage of lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy were sought for assessment. The first phases of randomised cross-over studies were also eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Results were expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two small studies (177 participants) for inclusion and analysis. One study (69 participants) compared percussion, diuresis and inversion therapy following shock wave lithotripsy versus observation-only after shock wave lithotripsy. This study reported significantly higher stone-free rates in the intervention group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82) and a significant reduction in stone burden (MD -3.30, 95% CI -3.58 to -3.03) compared to the observation-only group. They reported no significant differences in complication rates (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 76.24).The second study (108 participants) compared percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy plus shock wave lithotripsy with shock wave lithotripsy therapy alone. This study reported significantly higher stone-free rates in the intervention group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.80) and a significant reduction in stone burden (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.56) compared to the control group. They reported no significant differences in complication rates (RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.10 to 63.72).For both studies selection bias was unclear; there was high risk of bias for performance bias; and detection, attrition and reporting bias were low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence from two small studies indicated that percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy may be safe and effective therapies to assist clearance of lower pole kidney stone fragments following shock wave lithotripsy. Methodological quality in both studies was assessed as moderate. Further well-designed and adequately powered studies are required to inform clinical practice.