14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Outcome of shock wave lithotripsy as monotherapy for large solitary renal stones (>2 cm in size) without stenting

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose:

          To evaluate the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) as monotherapy for solitary renal stones larger than 2 cm without ureteral stenting.

          Materials and Methods:

          Our retrospective study included patients with solitary renal radio opaque stones larger than 2 cm treated with SWL using electromagnetic Dornier Compact S lithotripter device (Wessling, Germany) for a period of 3 years (September 2002-2005). Stone clearance was assessed at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months with plain X-rays of kidney, ureter, and bladder region, ultrasonography, and tomograms. Stone-free status, morbidity of the procedure, and fate of clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRF) were studied. A stone-free state was defined as no radiologic evidence of stone. Success was defined as complete clearance + CIRF.

          Results:

          Fifty-five patients, aged 11–65 years (mean 49.8) underwent SWL. Of them, only two were children. Male-to-female ratio was 3:1. The stone size was 21–28 mm (average 24 mm). The mean number of shocks were 3732 (range 724–12,100) and average energy level was 14 kV (range 11–16 kV). The mean follow-up was 18 months (range 3–22 months). Over all, stone-free status was achieved in 50% and success in 81% at 3 months. Stone clearance was not affected by stone location. Stones <25 mm had better stone-free rate (54.16% vs. 28.5%) and lesser CIRF (14.6% vs. 28.5%) when compared to larger stones (>26 mm) ( P = –0.10). Of 54 patients, 39 developed steinstrasse with mean length of 3.2 cm (range 1.4–6.2 cm) and only four required intervention. Effectiveness quotient (EQ) for SWL monotherapy for solitary renal stones more than 2 cm was 25.3%. The EQ for stones <25 mm and those more than 25 mm were 28.4% and 10% ( P = –0.12), respectively. There was a lesser trend of difference between stones with size <25 and more than 25 mm. During the last review, the overall stone-free rate was 67.2%.

          Conclusions:

          SWL monotherapy was safe but significantly less effective for solitary renal stones larger than 2 cm. It can only be suggested to those who refuse surgical intervention. Pretreatment DJ stenting is not mandatory when closer follow-up is ensured.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large-scale study at a single institution.

          We investigated the risk factors having an impact on the achievement of stone-free status and on the success rate, as well as on the likelihood of recurrence, in patients undergoing shockwave lithotripsy. We evaluated the characteristics and outcomes of 3023 patients (3254 renal units) with upper urinary-tract stones who underwent SWL at the Funabashi Clinic over a 13-year period. We assessed the stone-free and success rates for 2844 patients (3061 renal units) 3 months post-SWL. We also determined the recurrence rate for the 1078 patients (1139 renal units) who had achieved stone-free status at that time. Overall, stone-free status was achieved in 65.1% of patients, and the success rate was 85.7%. There were significant differences in the stone-free rates depending on patient age, history of urolithiasis, and presence of pyuria before SWL, as well as the number, location, size, and composition of the stones. Stones recurred in 326 of 1139 renal units (28.6%) during a mean follow-up of 36 months. The recurrence rates were 7.5%, 24.1%, and 33.0% after 1, 3, 5 years, respectively. Multiple stones, a history of urolithiasis, and stones located in the kidney or both kidneys plus the ureter significantly influenced recurrence. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that multiple stones were most significantly related to recurrence. Treatment with SWL has a low morbidity and high effectiveness. The number and location of stones and a history of urolithiasis significantly influence recurrence. Further studies of prophylactic therapy are required, especially for patients with these factors.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

            Two new therapies, percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, are revolutionizing the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi. We report the success and morbidity rates in 110 patients undergoing percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and 982 patients treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Staghorn calculi were excluded from this series. The over-all success rate (free of stones plus small asymptomatic residual fragments) was comparable with both modalities (percutaneous nephrostolithotomy 98 per cent and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 95 per cent), although the presence of residual fragments was more common in kidneys treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (24 versus 7 per cent). Patient morbidity as measured by temperature elevation, length of postoperative stay, pain and blood loss was significantly less (p less than 0.05) with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy than with percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. Re-treatment rates were similar with both procedures, and tended to increase in relation to increasing stone size and stone number. Post-treatment ancillary procedures (cystoscopy and stone manipulation, and percutaneous nephrostomy) were used more frequently with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Because of its efficacy and low morbidity, we conclude that extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is the treatment of choice for upper urinary tract calculi less than 2 cm. in diameter. However, percutaneous nephrostolithotomy will continue to have a primary role in the management of larger stones and cystine stones, and it will be used as a secondary procedure after unsuccessful extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatments. In addition, because of the complimentary nature of these 2 new technologies certain complex stones, such as staghorn calculi, may be handled best by a combination of the 2 techniques.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Does a slower treatment rate impact the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary kidney or ureteral stones?

              We compared the efficacy of an SR (70 to 80 shocks per minute) and an FR (120 shocks per minute) for ESWL for solitary stones less than 2 cm located in the kidney or proximal ureter. A total of 349 patients with a solitary, radiopaque kidney or ureteral stone underwent ESWL on a DoLi(R) 50 lithotriptor. Patients were grouped based on stone size, stone location and whether SR or FR treatment was performed. Of the 349 patients 135 had a renal stone between 1and 2 cm, 137 had a renal stone less than 1 cm and 77 had a proximal ureteral stone with a surface area of between 30 and 90 mm. SFRs were determined at approximately 1 month by plain x-ray of the kidneys, ureters and bladder. In comparison to the FR groups SR groups required fewer shocks and had significantly lower power indexes. Of patients with renal stones between 1 and 2 cm 24 of 52 (46%) in the FR group were stone-free compared to 56 of 83 (67%) in the SR group (p <0.05). For stones with a surface area of 30 to 90 mm located in the kidney or proximal ureter there was a trend toward an improved SFR in the SR group but differences between the SR and FR groups were not statistically significant. For solitary renal stones between 1 and 2 cm an SR results in a better treatment outcome than an FR for ESWL. However, when stone size is less than 1 cm, SFR differences in the SR and FR treatment groups become less significant.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Indian J Urol
                IJU
                Indian Journal of Urology : IJU : Journal of the Urological Society of India
                Medknow Publications (India )
                0970-1591
                1998-3824
                Jul-Sep 2010
                : 26
                : 3
                : 359-363
                Affiliations
                Department of Urology, Christian Medical College Hospital, Ida Scudder Road, Vellore, Tamil nadu, India
                Author notes
                For correspondence: Dr. Nitin S. Kekre, Head of the Department, Christian Medical College Hospital, Ida Scudder Road, Vellore, Tamil nadu - 632 004, India. E-mail: kekrenitin@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                IJU-26-359
                10.4103/0970-1591.70568
                2978434
                21116354
                a342a33a-a2e0-44c5-b0d6-8f783659c4e0
                © Indian Journal of Urology

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Original Article

                Urology
                dj stenting,swl monotherapy,renal calculi,lithotripsy
                Urology
                dj stenting, swl monotherapy, renal calculi, lithotripsy

                Comments

                Comment on this article