Efficacy of commercialised extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy service: a review of 589 renal stones

Tommy Kjærgaard Nielsen, Jørgen Bjerggaard Jensen, Tommy Kjærgaard Nielsen, Jørgen Bjerggaard Jensen

Abstract

Background: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the management of choice for renal stones 20 mm or smaller, with a stone clearance rate of up to 89%. The purpose of the present is to investigate the efficacy of a commercialised ESWL service, being performed as an outsourced treatment using a mobile lithotripsy system on an outpatient basis. Furthermore, the study aims to evaluate the risk of needing treatment with an internal ureteral double-J stent (JJ) after ESWL treatment.

Methods: During an eight-year period, 461 patients with a total of 589 renal stones were treated using a mobile lithotripsy system at a single Danish institution. A commercial company performed all treatments using a Storz Modulith SLK® system. Each stone was prospectively registered according to size, intra renal location and the presence of a JJ at the time of treatment. The number of required ESWL treatments and auxiliary procedures were retrospectively evaluated.

Results: The success rate after the initial ESWL procedure was 69%, which increased to an overall success rate of 93% after repeated treatment. A negative correlation was found between stone size and the overall success rate (r = -0.2, p < 0.01). The upper calyx was associated with a significantly better success rate, but otherwise intra renal stone location was not predictive for treatment success. A total of 17 patients (2.9%) required treatment with a JJ after the ESWL procedure. No significant difference was observed between the stone size or intra renal location and the risk of needing treatment with JJ after ESWL.

Conclusions: Commercialised ESWL treatment can achieve an overall success rate of more than 90% using a mobile lithotripsy system. As expected, an inverse relation between stone size and success rate was found. Patients who do not require treatment with a JJ prior to ESWL will only rarely need treatment with a JJ after ESWL, irrespective of stone size and intra renal stone location.

Keywords: Eswl; Lithotripsy; Mobile; Shockwave; Stones; Ureteral stent; Urinary calculi.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study was carried out with the approval of the local ethical committee (De Videnskabsetiske Komitéer for Region Midtjylland).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Madaan S, Joyce AD. Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol. 2007;17:109–113. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32802b70bc.
    1. Gerber R, Studer UE, Danuser H. Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations. J Urol. 2005;173:2013–2016. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000158042.41319.c4.
    1. Sahinkanat T, Ekerbicer H, Onal B, et al. Evaluation of the effects of relationships between main spatial lower pole calyceal anatomic factors on the success of shock-wave lithotripsy in patients with lower pole kidney stones. Urology. 2008;71:801–805. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.11.052.
    1. Turna B, Ekren F, Nazli O, et al. Comparative results of shockwave lithotripsy for renal calculi in upper, middle, and lower calices. J Endourol. 2007;21:951–956. doi: 10.1089/end.2006.0275.
    1. Preminger GM. Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res. 2006;34:108–111. doi: 10.1007/s00240-005-0020-6.
    1. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, et al. Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol. 2001;166:2072–2080. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65508-5.
    1. Nafie S, Dyer JE, Minhas JS, et al. Efficacy of a mobile lithotripsy service: a one-year review of 222 patients. Scand J Urol. 2014;48:324–327. doi: 10.3109/21681805.2014.886288.
    1. Nicholson A, Lee C, Ugarte R, et al. The Medstone fixed, mobile, and modular configurations: impact on efficacy. J Endourol. 2007;21(5):494–8.
    1. Albala DM, Siddiqui KM, Fulmer B, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with a transportable electrohydraulic lithotripter: experience with >300 patients. BJU Int. 2005;96:603–607. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05692.x.
    1. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, et al. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol. 1994;151:663–667. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)35042-5.
    1. Sorensen CM, Chandhoke PS. Is lower pole caliceal anatomy predictive of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success for primary lower pole kidney stones? J Urol. 2002;168:2377–2382. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64149-3.
    1. Obek C, Onal B, Kantay K, et al. The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower pole calculi compared with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi. J Urol. 2001;166:2081–2084. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65509-7.
    1. Hollowell CM, Patel RV, Bales GT, Gerber GS. Internet and postal survey of endourologic practice patterns among American urologists. J Urol. 2000;163:1779–1782. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67541-6.
    1. Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJ, Lemmens WA, Debruyne FM. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for large renal calculi: the role of ureteral stents. A randomized trial. Urol. 1991;145:699–702.
    1. Chandhoke PS, Barqawi AZ, Wernecke C, Chee-Awai RA. A randomized outcomes trial of ureteral stents for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of solitary kidney or proximal ureteral stones. J Urol. 2002;167:1981–1983. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65067-7.
    1. Musa AAK. Use of double-J stents prior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is not beneficial: results of a prospective randomized study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2007;40:19–22. doi: 10.1007/s11255-006-9030-8.
    1. Pryor JL, Jenkins AD. Use of double-pigtail stents in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1990;143:475–478. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)39993-7.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit