Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Urology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

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

Authors: Tommy Kjærgaard Nielsen, Jørgen Bjerggaard Jensen

Published in: BMC Urology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Madaan S, Joyce AD. Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol. 2007;17:109–13.CrossRefPubMed Madaan S, Joyce AD. Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol. 2007;17:109–13.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Gerber R, Studer UE, Danuser H. Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations. J Urol. 2005;173:2013–6.CrossRefPubMed Gerber R, Studer UE, Danuser H. Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations. J Urol. 2005;173:2013–6.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference 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;71:801–5.CrossRefPubMed 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;71:801–5.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference 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;21:951–6.CrossRefPubMed 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;21:951–6.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Preminger GM. Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res. 2006;34:108–11.CrossRefPubMed Preminger GM. Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res. 2006;34:108–11.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference 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;166:2072–80.CrossRefPubMed 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;166:2072–80.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference 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;48:324–7.CrossRefPubMed 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;48:324–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference 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. 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.
9.
go back to reference Albala DM, Siddiqui KM, Fulmer B, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with a transportable electrohydraulic lithotripter: experience with >300 patients. BJU Int. 2005;96:603–7.CrossRefPubMed Albala DM, Siddiqui KM, Fulmer B, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with a transportable electrohydraulic lithotripter: experience with >300 patients. BJU Int. 2005;96:603–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, et al. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol. 1994;151:663–7.CrossRefPubMed Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, et al. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol. 1994;151:663–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference 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;168:2377–82.CrossRefPubMed 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;168:2377–82.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference 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;166:2081–4.CrossRefPubMed 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;166:2081–4.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Hollowell CM, Patel RV, Bales GT, Gerber GS. Internet and postal survey of endourologic practice patterns among American urologists. J Urol. 2000;163:1779–82.CrossRefPubMed Hollowell CM, Patel RV, Bales GT, Gerber GS. Internet and postal survey of endourologic practice patterns among American urologists. J Urol. 2000;163:1779–82.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference 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. 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.
15.
go back to reference 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;167:1981–3.CrossRefPubMed 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;167:1981–3.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Pryor JL, Jenkins AD. Use of double-pigtail stents in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1990;143:475–8.CrossRefPubMed Pryor JL, Jenkins AD. Use of double-pigtail stents in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1990;143:475–8.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Efficacy of commercialised extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy service: a review of 589 renal stones
Authors
Tommy Kjærgaard Nielsen
Jørgen Bjerggaard Jensen
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Urology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2490
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0249-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Urology 1/2017 Go to the issue