Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Urolithiasis 3/2017

01-06-2017 | Original Paper

Comparison of escalating, constant, and reduction energy output in ESWL for renal stones: multi-arm prospective randomized study

Authors: Danny M. Rabah, Mohamed S. Mabrouki, Karim H. Farhat, Mohamed A. Seida, Mostafa A. Arafa, Riyadh F. Talic

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

This study was designed to find out the optimized energy delivery strategy in Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) that yield to the best stone-free rate (SFR). In this clinical trial, 150 consecutive patients were randomized into three groups: (a) Dose escalation, 1500 SW at 18 kV, followed by 1500 SW at 20 kV then 1500 SW at 22 kV. (b) Constant dose, 4500 SW at 20 kV. All patients undergo plain X-ray film of the urinary tract at day 1, 14, and 90 to assess stone-free rate (SFR) which was defined as no stones or painless fragments less than 4 mm. (c) Dose reduction, 1500 SW at 22 kV, followed by 1500 SW at 20 kV and then 1500 SW at 18 kV. The three treatment groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, stone size and distribution of the kidneys, and the need for Double J stent use. On day 90, the SFR achieved was 82, 90, and 84 % in the escalating, constant, and reduction energy groups, respectively. However, this rate was not statistically significant (x 2 = 1.38, p level = 0.28). At a slow rate of 60 shocks, there was no difference in stone-free rate between different voltages at 1, 14, and 90 days. Our randomized clinical trial showed no statistically significant difference in SFR between the three groups while using the slow SWL rate. Our trial is the first randomized trial comparing the three strategies. As such, a dose adjustment strategy while delivering SWL in slow rate was not recommended.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Alexander CE, Gowland S, Cadwallader J, Reynard JM, Turney BW (2016) Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL): outcomes from a national SWL database in New Zealand. BJU Int 117(Suppl 4):76–81CrossRefPubMed Alexander CE, Gowland S, Cadwallader J, Reynard JM, Turney BW (2016) Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL): outcomes from a national SWL database in New Zealand. BJU Int 117(Suppl 4):76–81CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Abid AF (2014) Success factors of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for renal and ureteric calculi in adult. Open J Urol 4:26–32CrossRef Abid AF (2014) Success factors of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for renal and ureteric calculi in adult. Open J Urol 4:26–32CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Elkoushy MA, Hassan JA, Morehouse DD, Anidjar M, Andonian S (2011) Factors determining stone-free rate in shock wave lithotripsy using standard focus of Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter. Urology 78(4):759–763CrossRefPubMed Elkoushy MA, Hassan JA, Morehouse DD, Anidjar M, Andonian S (2011) Factors determining stone-free rate in shock wave lithotripsy using standard focus of Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter. Urology 78(4):759–763CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference McClain PD, Lange JN, Assimos DG (2013) Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review. Rev Urol 15(2):49–60PubMedPubMedCentral McClain PD, Lange JN, Assimos DG (2013) Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review. Rev Urol 15(2):49–60PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Maloney ME, Marguet CG, Zhou Y, Kang DE, Sung JC, Springhart WP, Madden J, Zhong P, Preminger GM (2006) Progressive increase of lithotripter output produces better in vivo stone comminution. J Endourol 20(9):603–606CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Maloney ME, Marguet CG, Zhou Y, Kang DE, Sung JC, Springhart WP, Madden J, Zhong P, Preminger GM (2006) Progressive increase of lithotripter output produces better in vivo stone comminution. J Endourol 20(9):603–606CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Vallancien G, Munoz R, Borghi M, Veillon B, Brisset JM, Daudon M (1989) Relationship between the frequency of piezoelectric shock waves and the quality of renal stone fragmentation. In vitro study and clinical implications. Eur Urol 16:41–44PubMed Vallancien G, Munoz R, Borghi M, Veillon B, Brisset JM, Daudon M (1989) Relationship between the frequency of piezoelectric shock waves and the quality of renal stone fragmentation. In vitro study and clinical implications. Eur Urol 16:41–44PubMed
8.
go back to reference Madbouly K, El-Tiraifi AM, Seida M, El-Faqih SR, Atassi R, Talic RF (2005) Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 173(1):127–130CrossRefPubMed Madbouly K, El-Tiraifi AM, Seida M, El-Faqih SR, Atassi R, Talic RF (2005) Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 173(1):127–130CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Hassouna M, Oraby S, Sameh W (2011) Clinical experience with shock-wave lithotripsy using the Siemens Modularis Vario lithotripter. Arab J Urol 9(2):101–105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hassouna M, Oraby S, Sameh W (2011) Clinical experience with shock-wave lithotripsy using the Siemens Modularis Vario lithotripter. Arab J Urol 9(2):101–105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Candau C, Saussine C, Lang H, Roy C, Faure F, Jacqmin D (2000) Natural history of residual renal stone fragments after ESWL. Eur Urol 37:18–22CrossRefPubMed Candau C, Saussine C, Lang H, Roy C, Faure F, Jacqmin D (2000) Natural history of residual renal stone fragments after ESWL. Eur Urol 37:18–22CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Skuginna V, Nguyen DP, Seiler R, Kiss B (2016) Does stepwise voltage ramping protect the kidney from injury during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol 69(2):267–273CrossRefPubMed Skuginna V, Nguyen DP, Seiler R, Kiss B (2016) Does stepwise voltage ramping protect the kidney from injury during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol 69(2):267–273CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Zhou Y, Cocks FH, Preminger GM, Zhong P (2004) The effect of treatment strategy on stone comminution efficiency in shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 172(1):349–354CrossRefPubMed Zhou Y, Cocks FH, Preminger GM, Zhong P (2004) The effect of treatment strategy on stone comminution efficiency in shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 172(1):349–354CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Yong DZ, Lipkin ME, Simmons WN, Sankin G, Albala DM, Zhong P, Preminger GM (2011) Optimization of treatment strategy used during shockwave lithotripsy to maximize stone fragmentation efficiency. J Endourol 25(9):1507–1511CrossRefPubMed Yong DZ, Lipkin ME, Simmons WN, Sankin G, Albala DM, Zhong P, Preminger GM (2011) Optimization of treatment strategy used during shockwave lithotripsy to maximize stone fragmentation efficiency. J Endourol 25(9):1507–1511CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Ghosh N, Mandal SN, Baksh S, Karmakar D (2013) A prospective randomized study comparing the effect of escalating and fixed voltage treatment on stone comminution and renal injury during ESWL. J Urol 189(4):e748–e749CrossRef Ghosh N, Mandal SN, Baksh S, Karmakar D (2013) A prospective randomized study comparing the effect of escalating and fixed voltage treatment on stone comminution and renal injury during ESWL. J Urol 189(4):e748–e749CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Skuginna V, Nguyen DP, Seiter R, Thalmama GN, Roth B (2015) Effect of step-wise voltage ramping on renal stone damage and treatment outcome following extracorporeal shockwave lithtripsy (ESWL) of kidney stones: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 193(4):e446–e447CrossRef Skuginna V, Nguyen DP, Seiter R, Thalmama GN, Roth B (2015) Effect of step-wise voltage ramping on renal stone damage and treatment outcome following extracorporeal shockwave lithtripsy (ESWL) of kidney stones: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 193(4):e446–e447CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Lambert EH, Walsh R, Moreno MW, Gupta M (2010) Effect of escalating versus fixed voltage treatment on stone comminution and renal injury during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 183(2):580–584CrossRefPubMed Lambert EH, Walsh R, Moreno MW, Gupta M (2010) Effect of escalating versus fixed voltage treatment on stone comminution and renal injury during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 183(2):580–584CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar M, Tuglu D, Mert C, Basar H (2005) Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study. Urology 66(6):1160–1164CrossRefPubMed Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar M, Tuglu D, Mert C, Basar H (2005) Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study. Urology 66(6):1160–1164CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of escalating, constant, and reduction energy output in ESWL for renal stones: multi-arm prospective randomized study
Authors
Danny M. Rabah
Mohamed S. Mabrouki
Karim H. Farhat
Mohamed A. Seida
Mostafa A. Arafa
Riyadh F. Talic
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Urolithiasis / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0912-7

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Urolithiasis 3/2017 Go to the issue