Published: 2020-02-26

Shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis: a 12-month analysis of referral data to a metropolitan Australian Hospital

Joseph Swaminadan Jaya, Phi Nguyen, Henley Tran, John Bailie, John Brookes, Eren Tan, Philip McCahy


Background: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is still an important option in the treatment of renal tract stones. SWL is not without its limitations and alternatives should be considered. This study investigates the referral data to a new SWL planning meeting to identify reasons why SWL was not offered.

Methods: A review of 12 months of data prospectively collected at a weekly stone meeting was supplemented with a retrospective chart analysis to identify the source of all referrals for SWL. The principal reason for diverting a patient to other stone management was noted.

Results: 142 patients (median age 52 years) were referred for SWL over the 12-month period. SWL was not recommended in 40 (28.2%) patients. SWL was most commonly contraindicated due to excessive stone size±position (32.5%), anatomical complexity (25.0%) and radiolucency on x-ray (10.0%). The majority of patients who were diverted away from SWL were referred from an emergency department (32.5%) and the general urology clinics (20.0%).

Conclusions: A significant portion of patients referred for SWL prove unsuitable for this method of stone clearance. This highlights an educational gap amongst clinicians regarding the indications and more importantly contraindications for SWL. Only 6.3% of total referrals originated from general practice suggesting a lack of awareness of the process of direct referral for SWL. Improving this with guidelines will relieve demand in outpatient clinics and help streamline patient care.


Lithotripsy, Nephrolithiasis, Referral, Shockwave, Urolithiasis

Full Text:



Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D'A Honey RJ, Pace KT. A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol. 2011;25(3):481-5.

Chan LH, Good DW, Laing K, Phipps S, Thomas BG, Keanie JY, et al. Primary SWL Is an Efficient and Cost-Effective Treatment for Lower Pole Renal Stones Between 10 and 20 mm in Size: A Large Single Center Study. J Endourol. 2017;31(5):510-6.

Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Das MK, Jha SK. A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Flexible Ureterorenoscopy for Lower Caliceal Stones =2 cm: A Single-Center Experience. J Endourol. 2015;29(5):575-9.

Koo V, Young M, Thompson T, Duggan B. Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi. BJU Int. 2011;108(11):1913-6.

Reynolds LF, Kroczak T, Pace KT. Indications and contraindications for shock wave lithotripsy and how to improve outcomes. Asian J Urol. 2018;5(4):256-63.

Blundell N, Clarke A, Mays N. Interpretations of referral appropriateness by senior health managers in five PCT areas in England: a qualitative investigation. Quality Safety Health Care. 2010;19(3):182-6.

Türk C, Neisius A, Petřík A, Seitz C, Thomas K, Skolarikos A. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis 2018. European Association of Urology Guidelines 2018 Edition. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. Arnhem, Netherlands: Europ Assoc Urol Guidelines Office; 2018.

Chaussy CG, Tiselius HG. How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Urolithiasis. 2018;46(1):3-17.

Desai M, Sun Y, Buchholz N, Fuller A, Matsuda T, Matlaga B, et al. Treatment selection for urolithiasis: percutaneous nephrolithomy, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, and active monitoring. World J Urol. 2017;35(9):1395-9.

Ringden I, Tiselius HG. Composition and clinically determined hardness of urinary tract stones. Scandina J Urol Nephrol. 2007;41(4):316-23.

Tiselius HG. How efficient is extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with modern lithotripters for removal of ureteral stones? J Endourol. 2008;22(2):249-55.

NICE Guideline - Renal and ureteric stones: assessment and management: NICE (2019) Renal and ureteric stones: assessment and management. BJU Int. 2019;123(2):220-32.

Ganesan V, De S, Greene D, Torricelli FC, Monga M. Accuracy of ultrasonography for renal stone detection and size determination: is it good enough for management decisions? BJU Int. 2017;119(3):464-9.

Manohar P, McCahy P. Repeated radiological radiation exposure in patients undergoing surgery for urinary tract stone disease in Victoria, Australia. BJU Int. 2011;108:34-7.