Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Urology Reports
Published in: Current Urology Reports 4/2017

01-04-2017 | Endourology (P Mucksavage, Section Editor)

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy: Current Perspectives and Future Directions

Authors: Andrew C. Lawler, Eric M. Ghiraldi, Carmen Tong, Justin I. Friedlander

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Since its introduction, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has undergone a variety of changes; however, it remains one of the most utilized treatment modalities for urolithiasis. The goal of this review is to provide the practicing urologist an update on contemporary trends, new technologies, and related controversies in utilizing ESWL for stone treatment.

Recent Findings

ESWL use has come under scrutiny with a shift in focus to cost-effectiveness and healthcare outcomes. Fortunately, advances in lithotripter technology have spawned several generations of devices that strive to improve stone-free rates and decrease complications. Most of all, a focus on patient selection criteria has helped improve procedural success.

Summary

Years of experience utilizing ESWL for stone treatment have helped urologists better optimize its use and minimize complications. Improvements in technique along with more stringent patient and stone selection have helped ESWL remain a mainstay in the treatment of stone disease.
Literature
1.
Chaussy C, Schuller J, Schmiedt E, et al. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of urolithiasis. Urology. 1984;23(5):59–66.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller N, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline. Part I J Urol. 2016;196(4):1161–69.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Chaussy, C. “Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Past, Present, and Future.” Shock Wave Lithotripsy. New York: Springer US, 1988. Springer Book Archive. Web. 11 Dec 2016.
4.
De Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, et al. A new transportable shock-wave lithotripsy machine for managing urinary stones: a single-centre experience with a dual-focus lithotripter. BJU Int. 2007;100:1137–41.PubMed
5.
McClain PD, Lange JN, Assimos DG. Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review. Rev Urol. 2013;15(2):49–60.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Zehnder P, Roth B, Birkhäuser F, et al. A prospective randomised trial comparing the modified HM3 with the MODULITH(®) SLX-F2 lithotripter. Eur Urol. 2011;59:637–44.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gerber R, Studer UE, Danuser H. Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations. J Urol. 2005;173:2013–16.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Graber SF, Danuser H, Hochreiter WW, Studer UE. A prospective randomized trial comparing 2 lithotripters for stone disintegration and induced renal trauma. J Urol. 2003;169:54–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Matin SF, Yost A, Streem SB. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: a comparative study of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic units. J Urol. 2001;166:2053–56.CrossRefPubMed
10.
• Faragher SR, Cleveland RO, Kumar S, et al. In Vitro assessment of three clinical lithotripters employing different shock wave generators. J Endourol. 2016;30(5):560–66. This in vitro investigation demonstrated that lithotripters with electromagnetic and piezoelectric generators did not have statistically significant differences in stone reduction rates as compared to each, but both had significantly higher rates than the electroconductive lithotripter. The electroconductive lithotripter also decreased in efficacy after 6000 shocks.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Kerbl K, Rehman J, Landman J, Lee D, Sundaram C, Clayman RV. Current management of urolithisasis: progress or regress? J Endourol. 2002;16(5):281–88.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Cleveland RO, Anglade R, Babayan RK. Effect of stone motion on in vitro comminution efficiency of a Storx Modulith SLX. J Endourol. 2004;18:629–33.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Sorensen MD, Bailey MR, Shah AR, Hsi RS, Paun M, Harper JD. Quantitative assessment of shockwave lithotripsy accuracy and the effect of respiratory motion. J Endourol. 2012;26(8):1070–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Pishchalnikov YA, McAteer JA, Williams JC, et al. Evaluation of the LithoGold LG-380 Lithotripter: in vitro acoustic characterization and assessment of renal injury in the pig model. J Endourol. 2013;27(5):631–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Pishchalnikov YA, Vonderhaar RJ, Williams JC, et al. The advantage of a broad focal zone in SWL: in vitro stone breakage comparing two electromagnetic lithotripters. J Urol. 2008;179:464–65.CrossRef
16.
Bhojani N, Mandeville JA, Hameed TA, et al. Lithotripter outcomes in a community practice setting: comparison of an electromagnetic and electrohydraulic lithotripter. J Urol. 2015;193:875–79.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
John BS, Patel U, Anson K. What radiation exposure can a patient expect during a single stone episode? J Endourol. 2008;22:419–22.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Bohris C, Bayer T, Gumpinger R. Ultrasound monitoring of kidney stone extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with an external transducer: does fatty tissue cause image distortions that affect stone comminution. J Endourol. 2010;24(1):81–8.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Chen CJ, Hsu HC, Chung WS, et al. Clinical experience with ultrasound-based real-time tracking lithotripsy in the single renal stone treatment. J Endourol. 2009;23(11):1811–15.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Abid N, Ravier E, Promeyrat X, et al. Decreased radiation exposure and increased efficacy in extracorporeal lithotripsy using a new ultrasound stone locking system. J Endourol. 2015;29(11):1263–69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Mazzucchi E, Brito AH, Danilovic A, et al. Comparison between two shock wave regimens using frequencies of 60 and 90 impulses per minute for urinary stones. Clinics Sau Paulo. 2010;65(10):961–65.CrossRef
23.
Honey RJ, Schuler TD, Ghiculete D, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial to compare shock wave frequencies of 60 and 120 shocks per minute for upper ureteral stones. J Urol. 2009;182(4):1418–23.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Nguyen DP, Hnilicka S, Kiss B, et al. Optimization of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy delivery rates achieves excellent outcomes for ureteral stones: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol. 2015;194(2):418–23.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zhou Y, Cocks FH, Preminger GM, et al. The effect of treatment strategy on stone comminution efficiency in shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2004;172(1):349–54.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Willis LR, Evan AP, Connors BA, et al. Prevention of lithotripsy-induced renal injury by pretreating kidneys with low-energy shock waves. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17(3):663–73.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Handa RK, McAteer JA, Connors BA, et al. Optimising an escalating shockwave amplitude treatment strategy to protect the kidney from injury during shockwave lithotripsy. BJU Int. 2012;110(11):1041–47.CrossRef
28.
Ng CF, Luke S, Yee CH, et al. A prospective randomized study comparing the effect of different kidney protection treatment protocols on acute renal injury after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2017;31:57–65.
29.
Skuginna V, Nguyen DP, Seiler R. Does stepwise voltage ramping protect the kidney during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? results of a prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2016;69:267–73.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Fernandez F, Fernandez G, Loske AM. Treatment time reduction using tandem shockwaves for lithotripsy: an in vivo study. J Endourol. 2009;23(8):1247–53.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Shah A, Harper JD, Cunitz BW, et al. Focused ultra-sound to expel calculi from the kidney. J Urol. 2012;187(2):739–43.CrossRefPubMed
32.
•• Garcia-Galisteo E, Sanchez-Martinez N, Molina-Diaz P, et al. Invasive treatment trends in urinary calculi in a third level hospital. Actas Urol Esp. 2015;39(1):32–7. An observational review of ESWL utilization at a tertiary care facility from 1998 to 2012. Nearly 11,000 patients were available for review, 90% of which were treated with ESWL. A clear peak in ESWL treatments was observed in 2006, with a progressive decline thereafter with an associated increase in endoscopic procedures. The study is relevant to our review as it describes contemporary trends of ESWL utilization.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Acland G, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Rice M. Contemporary trends in urinary tract stone surgery, a regional perspective: Auckland, New Zealand. ANZ J Surg. 2016;86(4):244–48.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Manzoor S, Hashmi AH, Sohail MA, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. ureterorenoscopic (URS) manipulation in proximal ureteric stone. J Coll Physicans Surg Pak. 2013;23(10):726–30.
35.
Cecen K, Karadaq MA, Demir A, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper/middle calyx kidney stones of 10-20mm: a retrospective analysis of 174 patients. Springerplus. 2014;3:557.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20mm. BJU Int. 2012;110(6):898–902.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Pearle et al. Smith’s Textbook of Endourology. Chapter 66: Cost effective strategies for management.
38.
Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, et al. Treatment of ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Urol. 2012;188:130.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
•• Cone EB, Eisner BH, Ursiny M, et al. Cost-effectiveness comparison of renal calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2014;28(6):639–43. Cost effectiveness for ESWL versus URS to treat renal and ureteral stones relies on selecting the ideal candidate. Cone et al. creates a decision analysis model using two retrospective cohorts for renal and ureteral stones, respectively. For renal stones, ESWL is more cost-effective than URS if a stone free rate of greater than 67% is achieved. For ureteral stones, ESWL is more cost effective than URS if a stone free rate of greater than 64% is achieved. Each study identifies URS as a superior treatment to ESWL for managing renal and ureteral stones <1.5 cm. Both studies stress the importance of careful patient selection for ESWL to limit health care costs.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Cone EB, Pareek G, Ursiny M, et al. Cost-effectiveness comparison of ureteral calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy. World J Urol. 2017;35:161–166.
41.
Grasso M, Beaghler M, Loisides P. The case for primary endoscopic management of upper urinary tract calculi: II. Cost and outcome assessment of 112 primary ureteral calculi. Urology. 1995;45:372–6.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Parker BD, Frederick RW, Reilly TP, Lowry PS, Bird ET. Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. Urology. 2004;64:1102–06. discussion 1106.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Kim JK, Ha SB, Jeon CH et al. Clinical nomograms to predict stone-free rates after shock-wave lithotripsy: development and internal-validation. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0149333.
44.
•• Tran TY, McGillen K, Cone EB, et al. Triple D score is a reportable predictor of shockwave lithotripsy stone-free rates. J Endourol. 2015;29(2):226–30. Predictive tools to help identify the ideal candidate for ESWL is very important as it is the most cost-effective treatment we have in our armamentarium if successful at rendering patients stone free. The triple D score identifies three quantitative variables, stone density, skin to stone distance, and stone diameter (volume) that are associated improved stone free rates.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Park HS, Gong MK, Yoon CY, et al. Computed tomography based novel prediction model for the outcome of shockwave lithotripsy in proximal ureteral stones. J Endourol. 2016;30(7):810–16.CrossRefPubMed
46.
47.
• Denburg MR, Jemielita TO, Tasian GE, et al. Assessing the risk of incident hypertension and chronic kidney disease after exposure to shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy. Kidney Int. 2016;89(1):185–92. A large epidemiologic study utilizing The Health Improvement network (THIN) database to compare the risk of hypertension and CKD in patients without urolithiasis, patients managed conservatively for urolithiasis, and patients managed with ESWL or URS. This is a timely and contemporary study challenging the controversy of ESWLs associated risk of HTN and CKD, for which several studies in the literature are underpowered. Within this large patient database, Denburg et al. identified an increased risk of HTN with ESWL to the kidney in all age groups, ESWL to the ureter in patient’s younger than 40, and no associating of increased risk of HTN or CKD in patients receiving URS for kidney or ureteral stones.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Lingemen JE, Woods JR, Toth PD. Blood pressure changes following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and other forms of treatment for nephrolithiasis. JAMA. 1990;263(13):1789–94.CrossRef
49.
Krambeck AE, Gettman MT, Rohlinger AL, et al. Diabetes mellitus and hypertension associated with shock wave lithotripsy of renal and proximal ureteral stones at 19 years of followup. J Urol. 2006;175:1742–47.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Elves AW, Tilling K, Menezes P, Wills M, Rao PN, Feneley RC. Early observations of the effect of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy on blood pressure: a prospective randomized control clinical trial. BJU Int. 2000;85:611.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Jewett MAS, Bombardier C, Logan AG, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess the incidence of new onset hypertension in patients after shock wave lithotripsy for asymptomatic renal calculi. J Urol. 1998;60:1241–43.CrossRef
52.
Krambeck AE, Rule AD, Li X, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy is not predictive of hypertension among community stone formers at long-term followup. J Urol. 2011;185:164–69.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Yu C, Longfei L, Long W, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of new onset hypertension after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2014;46(4):719–25.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Fankhauser CD, Kranzbühler B, Poyet C, et al. Long-term adverse effects of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis: a systematic review. Urology. 2015;85(5):991–1006.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Pirola GM, Micali S, Sighinolfi MC, et al. Evaluation of long-term side effects after shock-wave lithotripsy for renal calculi using a third generation electromagnetic lithotripter. Urolithiasis. 2016;44(5):465–70.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Makhlouf AA, Thorner D, Ugarte R, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy not associated with development of diabetes mellitus at 6 years of follow-up. Urology. 2009;73:4–8.CrossRefPubMed
57.
de Cógáin M, Krambeck AE, Rule AD, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy and diabetes mellitus: a population-based cohort study. Urology. 2012;79(2):298–302.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Deng T, Liao B, Tian Y, et al. New-onset diabetes mellitus after shock wave lithotripsy for urinary stone: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2015;43(3):227–31.CrossRefPubMed
59.
el-Assmy A, el-Nahas AR, Hekal IA, et al. Long-term effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on renal function: our experience with 156 patients with solitary kidney. J Urol. 2008;179:2229–32.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Philippou P, Ralph DJ, Timoney AG. The impact of shock wave lithotripsy on male fertility: a critical analysis of existing literature. Urology. 2012;79(3):492–500.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Vieweg J, Weber HM, Miller K, Hautmann R. Female fertility following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1992;148(3 Pt 2):1007–10.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy: Current Perspectives and Future Directions
Authors
Andrew C. Lawler
Eric M. Ghiraldi
Carmen Tong
Justin I. Friedlander
Publication date
01-04-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Urology Reports / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-017-0672-0

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Current Urology Reports 4/2017 Go to the issue

Endourology (P Mucksavage, Section Editor)

Reconstructive Management Options of Delayed Complications Following Bladder Outlet Surgery

Endourology (P Mucksavage, Section Editor)

To Dust or Not To Dust: a Systematic Review of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy Techniques

Minimally Invasive Surgery (T Guzzo, Section Editor)

Endoscopic Treatment of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma

Endourology (P Mucksavage, Section Editor)

Prone Versus Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: What Is Your Position?

Pediatric Urology (D Weiss, Section Editor)

Robotic Ureteral Reimplant—the Current Role

Endourology (P Mucksavage, Section Editor)

Update on Renal Mass Biopsy