Study of factors predicting clinical outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in Indian patients with upper urinary tract calculi

Authors

  • Panchal P. G. Department of Urology, Burjeel Hospitals, Al Khuwair, Muscat Sultanate of Oman, Oman
  • Mahesh Krishnaswamy Department of Urology, Burjeel Hospitals, Al Khuwair, Muscat Sultanate of Oman, Oman
  • Dhammdeep C. Dabhade Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
  • Onkar C. Swami Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Pune, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20181143

Keywords:

ESWL, Factors, India, Urinary tract calculi

Abstract

Background: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is an effective non-invasive method for managing urinary tract calculi. Present study was undertaken to evaluate factors that may influence ESWL clinical outcomes in Indian patients with urinary tract calculi.

Methods: This prospective study was conducted at Department of Urology, Medical Trust Hospital Cochin, India in the period from September 2006 to March 2009. Sixty patients with upper urinary tract lithiasis having stone size between 5 to 25 mm were included and patients with ˃2 calculi, distal ureteric obstruction (not relieved), renal anomalies were excluded. All patients were treated with DIREX medical system lithotripter. Clinical outcome of ESWL was assessed by factors like site, size, density and skin-to-stone distance. After statistical analysis, p-value ≤0.05 was taken as the level of significance.

Results: The overall success of ESWL was 82%. The final success of ESWL for sites like ureter, pelvis, mid or upper and lower calyx were 94.1%, 84%, 85.7% and 58% respectively (p = 0.095). The rate of fragmentation of stone after one session of ESWL for stone size ≤10 mm, 11 mm - 20 mm and ≥21 mm was 76.5%, 68.4% and 16.7% respectively (p=0.009). For stone density 751-1000 HU, 22.2% patients required ≥2 sessions to achieve stone free status (p<0.0005). Around 15.6% patients in skin-to-stone distance (SSD) ≤10cm required ≥2 sessions to achieve stone free status (p = 0.27).

Conclusions: ESWL should be considered a primary modality of treatment in patients with calculi size ≤20 mm, density ≤ 1000 HU, pelvic, ureteric and upper and/or middle calyceal calculi and for SSD ≤10 cm.

References

Köhrmann KU, Neisius D, Rassweiler J. The future of ESWL. Urologe A. 2008;47(5):569-77.

Chaussy C, Fuchs G. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the evolution of a revolution. Urologe A. 1989;28(3):126-9.

Chaussy C, Schmiedth E, Jocham D, Walther V, Brendel W, Forssmann B. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: new aspects in the treatment of kidney stone disease. Basel, Karger. 1982:1-5.

Joseph P, Mandal AK, Singh SK, Mandal P, Sankhwar SN, Sharma SK. Computerized tomography attenuation value of renal calculus: can it predict successful fragmentation of the calculus by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A preliminary study. J Urol. 2002;167(5):1968-71.

Abid AF. Success factors of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for Renal & Ureteric Calculi in Adult. Open J Urol. 2014;4:26-32.

Choi JW, Song PH, Kim HT. Predictive factors of the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Korean J Urol. 2012 Jun;53(6):424-30.

Al-Ansari A, As-Sadiq K, Al-Said S, Younis N, Jaleel OA, Shokeir AA. Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol. 2006;38(1):63-7.

Abdel-Khalek M, Sheir KZ, Mokhtar AA, Eraky I, Kenawy M, Bazeed M. Prediction of success rate after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of renal stones--a multivariate analysis model. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2004; 38(2):161-7.

Grace PA, Gillen P, Smith JM, Fitzpatrick JM. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with lithostar lithotripter. Bit J Urol. 1989;64:117-21.

Weld KJ, Montiglio C, Morris MS, Bush AC, Cespedes RD. Shock wave lithotripsy success for renal stones based on patient and stone computed tomography characteristics. Urol. 2007;70(6):1043-6.

Halachmi S, Nagar M, Golan S, Ginesin Y, Meretyk S. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for large ureteral stones using hm3 lithotriptor. J Urol. 2006;176(4)(1):1449-52.

Obek C, Onal B, Kantay K, Kalkan M, Yalçin V, Oner A. The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower pole calculi compared with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi. J Urol. 2001;166(6):2081-4

Turna B, Ekren F, Nazli O, Akbay K, Altay B, Ozyurt C. Comparative results of shockwave lithotripsy for renal calculi in upper, middle, and lower calices. J Endourol. 2007;21(9):951-6.

Gupta NP, Ansari MS, Kesarvani P, Kapoor A, Mukhopadhyay S. Role of computed tomography with no contrast medium enhancement in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. BJU Int. 2005;95(9):1285-8.

Yamamoto K, Kishimoto T, Sakamoto W, Sugimoto T, Iimori H, Kanasawa T. Urolithiasis: a change in therapeutic methods extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy using a Dornier kidney lithotripter HM3. Hinyokika Kiyo. 1989;35(12):2093-8.

Wang LJ, Wong YC, Chuang CK, Chu SH, Chen CS, See LC. Predictions of outcomes of renal stones after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy from stone characteristics determined by unenhanced helical computed tomography: a multivariate analysis. J Eu Radiol. 2005;15(11):2238-43.

El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Sheir KZ. Is pre-shock wave lithotripsy stenting necessary for ureteral stones with moderate or severe hydronephrosis? J Urol. 2006;176(5):2059-62.

Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, Asakura H, Miyajima A, Oya M. Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2006;176(4)(1):1280-1.

Kacker R, Zhao L, Macejko A, Thaxton CS, Stern J, Liu JJ. Radiographic parameters on noncontrast computerized tomography predictive of shock wave lithotripsy success, J Urol. 2008;179(5):1866-71.

Cheng G, Xie LP, Li XY. Value of hounsfield unit on CT in prediction of stone-free rate of upper urinary calculi after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2006;86(4):276-8.

El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O, Sheir KZ. A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomography. Eur Urol. 2007;51(6):1688-93.

Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT Jr, Nakada SY. Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urol. 2005;66(5):941-4.

Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Fracchia JA. Hounsfield units on computerized tomography predict stone-free rates after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2003;169(5):1679-81.

Perks AE, Gotto G, Teichman JM. Shock wave lithotripsy correlates with stone density on preoperative computerized tomography. J Urol. 2007;178(3)(1):912-5.

Downloads

Published

2018-03-23

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles