Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-09-2017 | Topic Paper

Shockwave lithotripsy: techniques for improving outcomes

Authors: Tadeusz Kroczak, Kymora B. Scotland, Ben Chew, Kenneth T. Pace

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 9/2017

Abstract

Objectives

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) remains the only effective truly non-invasive treatment for nephrolithiasis. While single-treatment success rates may not equal those of ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy, it has an important role to play in the management of stones. In this paper, we outline the latest evidence-based recommendations for maximizing SWL outcomes, while minimizing complications.

Materials and methods

A comprehensive review of the current literature was performed regarding maximizing SWL outcomes.

Results

Several different considerations need to be made regarding patient selection with respect to body habitus, body mass index, anatomical location and underlying urologic abnormalities. Stone composition and stone density (Hounsfield Units) are important prognostic variables. Patient positioning is critical to allow for adequate stone localization with either fluoroscopy or ultrasound. Coupling should be optimized with a low viscosity gel applied to the therapy head first and patient movement should be limited. SWL energy should be increased slowly and shockwave rates of 60 or 90 Hz should be used. Medical expulsive therapy with alpha-blockers after SWL treatment has shown benefit, particularly with stones greater than 10 mm.

Conclusion

While single-treatment success rates may not equal those of ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy, with proper patient selection, optimization of SWL technique, and use of adjunctive treatment after SWL, success rates can be maximized while further reducing the already low rate of serious complications. SWL remains an excellent treatment option for calculi even in 2017.

Chaussy CG, Fuchs GJ (1989) Current state and future developments of noninvasive treatment of human urinary stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 141:782CrossRefPubMed

Kerbl K, Rehman J, Landman J et al (2002) Current management of urolithiasis: progress or regress? J Endourol 16:281CrossRefPubMed

Lantz AG, McKay J, Ordon M, Pace KT, Monga M, Honey RJ (2016) Shockwave lithotripsy practice pattern variations among and between american and canadian urologists: in support of guidelines. J Endourol 30(8):918–922CrossRefPubMed

Lee C, Best SL, Ugarte R et al (2008) Impact of learning curve on efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy. Radiol Technol 80(1):20–24PubMed

Tailly GG (2013) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy today. Indian J Urol 29:200–207CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Knoll T, Fritsche HM, Rassweiler JJ (2011) Medical and economic aspects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Aktuelle Urol 42:363–367CrossRefPubMed

Kohrmann KU, Rassweiler JJ, Manning M et al (1995) The clinical introduction of a third generation lithotriptor: modulith SL20. J Urol 153:1379CrossRefPubMed

Tan YM, Yip SK, Chong TW et al (2002) Clinical experience and results of ESWL treatment for 3,093 urinary calculi with the StorzModultih SL20 lithotriptor at the Singapore General Hospital. Scand J Urol Nephrol 36:363CrossRefPubMed

Lam HS, Lingeman JE, Barron M et al (1992) Staghorn calculi: analysis of treatment results between initial percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy with reference to surface area. J Urol 147(5):1219–1225CrossRefPubMed

10.

Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, Ray AA et al (2011) A clinical nomogram to predict the successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol 186:556–562CrossRefPubMed

11.

Patel T, Kozakowski K, Hruby G et al (2009) Skin to stone distance is an independent predictor of stone-free status following shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol 23:1383CrossRefPubMed

12.

Gupta NP, Ansari MS, Kesarvani P et al (2005) Role of computed tomography with no contrast medium enhancement in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. BJU Int 95:1285–1288CrossRefPubMed

13.

Joseph P, Mandal AK, Singh SK et al (2002) 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 167:1968–1971CrossRefPubMed

14.

El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O et al (2007) A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution non-contrast computed tomography. Eur Urol 51:1688–1694CrossRefPubMed

15.

Ouzaid I, Al-qahtani S, Dominique S et al (2012) A 970 Hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients’ selection for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from a prospective study. BJU Int 110:E438–E442CrossRefPubMed

16.

Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV et al (2001) Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol 166(6):2072–2080CrossRefPubMed

17.

Collado Serra A, Huguet PŽrez J, Monreal Garc’a de Vicu-a F et al (1999) Renal hematoma as a complication of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Scand J Urol Nephrol 33:171–175CrossRefPubMed

18.

Lee HY, Yang YH, Shen JT et al (2013) Risk factors survey for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy-induced renal hematoma. J Endourol 27:2763–2767

19.

Klingler HC, Kramer G, Lodde M et al (2003) Stone treatment and coagulopathy. Eur Urol 43:75CrossRefPubMed

20.

Razvi H, Fuller A, Nott L et al (2012) Risk factors for perinephric hematoma formation after shockwave lithotripsy: matched case-control analysis. J Endourol 26:1478–1482CrossRefPubMed

21.

Chaussy CG, Tiselius H (2012) What you should know about extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and how to improve your performance. In: Talati JJ, Tiselius HG, Albala D, Ye Z (eds) Urolithiasis. Springer, London, pp 383–393CrossRef

22.

Tiselius HG, Chaussy CG (2012) Aspects on how extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy should be carried out in order to be maximally effective. Urol Res 40:433–446CrossRefPubMed

23.

Bohris C, Roosen A, Dickmann M et al (2012) Monitoring the coupling of the lithotripter head with skin during routine shock wave lithotripsy with a surveillance camera. J Urol 187:157–163CrossRefPubMed

24.

Phipps S, Stephenson C, Tolley D (2013) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy to distal ureteric stones: the transgluteal approach significantly increases stone-free rates. BJU Int 112:E129–E133CrossRefPubMed

25.

Paterson R, Lifshitz DA, Lingeman JE et al (2002) Stone fragmentation during shock wave lithotripsy is improved by slowing the shock wave rate: studies with a new animal model. J Urol 168:2211–2215CrossRefPubMed

26.

Pishchalnikov YA, Neuks JS, VonDerHaar RJ, Pishchalnikova IV, Williams JC Jr, McAteer JA (2006) Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shockwave energy. J Urol 176(6 Pt 1):2706–2710CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Jain A, Shah TK (2007) Effect of air bubbles in the coupling medium on efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 51(6):1680–1686CrossRefPubMed

28.

Weaver J, Monga M (2014) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for upper tract urolithiasis. Curr Opin Urol 24(2):168–172CrossRefPubMed

29.

Tiselius HG (2008) How efficient is extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with modern lithotripters for removal of ureteral stones? J Endourol 22:249–255CrossRefPubMed

30.

Evan AP, McAteer JA, Connors BA et al (2007) Renal injury during shock wave lithotripsy is significantly reduced by slowing the rate of shock wave delivery. BJU Int 100:624–627CrossRefPubMed

31.

Seitz C, Fritsche HM, Siebert T et al (2009) Novel electromagnetic lihotriptor for upper tract stones with and without ureteral stent. J Urol 182:1424–1429CrossRefPubMed

32.

Tiselius HG (1991) Anesthesia-free in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones. J Urol 146:8–12CrossRefPubMed

33.

Rasweiller JJ, Knoll T, Kohrmann KU, McAteer JA, Lingeman JE, Cleveland RO, Bailey MR, Chaussy C (2011) Shock wave technology and application: an update. Eur Urol 59(5):784–796CrossRef

34.

Handa RK, Bailey MR, Paun M et al (2009) Pretreatment with low-energy shock waves induces renal vasoconstriction during standard shock wave lithotripsy (SWL): a treatment protocol known to reduce SWL-induced renal injury. BJU Int 103:1270–1274CrossRefPubMed

35.

Handa RK, McAteer JA, Connors B et al (2012) Optimising an escalating shockwave amplitude treatment strategy to protect the kidney from injury during shockwave lithotripsy. BJU Int 110:E1041–E1047CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Bohris C, Bayer T, Gumpinger R (2010) Ultrasound monitoring of kidney stone extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with an external transducer: does fatty tissue cause image distortions that affect stone comminution? J Endourol 24:81–88CrossRefPubMed

37.

Lingeman JE, McAteer JA, Gnessin E et al (2009) Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique. Nat Rev Urol 6:660–670CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Paterson RF, Lifshitz DA, Kuo R et al (2002) Shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy for renal calculi. Int Braz J Urol 28:291–301PubMed

39.

Tiselius HG, Aronsen T, Bohgard S et al (2010) Is high diuresis an important prerequisite for successful SWL-disintegration of ureteral stones? Urol Res 38:143–146CrossRefPubMed

40.

Perks AE, Schuler TD, Lee J et al (2008) Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 72:765–769CrossRefPubMed

41.

Thomas R, Cass AS (1993) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in morbidly obese patients. J Urol 150:30–32CrossRefPubMed

42.

Vakalopoulos I (2009) Development of a mathematical model to predict extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy outcome. J Endourol 23:891–897CrossRefPubMed

43.

Pace KT, Ghiculete D, Harju M et al (2005) Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol 174:595–599CrossRefPubMed

44.

Honey RJ, Schuler TD, Ghiculete D et al (2009) A randomized, double-blind trial to compare shock wave frequencies of 60 and 120 shocks per minute for upper ureteral stones. J Urol 182:1418–1423CrossRefPubMed

45.

Davenport K, Minervini A, Keoghane S et al (2006) Does rate matter? The results of a randomized controlled trial of 60 versus 120 shocks per minute for shock wave lithotripsy of renal calculi. J Urol 176:2055–2058CrossRefPubMed

46.

Madbouly K, El-Tiraifi AM, Seida M et al (2005) Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 173:127–130CrossRefPubMed

47.

Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar M et al (2005) Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study. Urology 66:1160–1164CrossRefPubMed

48.

Li K, Lin T, Zhang C et al (2013) Optimal frequency of shock wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Urol 190:1260–1267CrossRefPubMed

49.

Kato Y, Yamaguchi S, Hori J et al (2006) Improvement of stone comminution by slow delivery rate of shock waves in extracorporeal lithotripsy. Int J Urol 13:1461–1465CrossRefPubMed

50.

Chacko J, Moore M, Sankey N et al (2006) Does a slower treatment rate impact the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary kidney or ureteral stones? J Urol 175:1370–1374CrossRefPubMed

51.

Gillitzer R, Neisius A, Wšllner J et al (2009) Low-frequency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy improves renal pelvic stone disintegration in a pig model. BJU Int 103:1284–1288CrossRefPubMed

52.

Schuler TD, Shahani R, Honey RJ et al (2009) Medical expulsive therapy as an adjunct to improve shockwave lithotripsy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 23:387–393CrossRefPubMed

53.

Seitz C, Liatsikos E, Porpiglia F et al (2009) Medical therapy to facilitate the passage of stones: what is the evidence? Eur Urol 56:455–471CrossRefPubMed

54.

Pace KT, Tariq N, Dyer SJ et al (2001) Mechanical percussion, inversion and diuresis for residual lower pole fragments after shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective, single blind, randomized controlled trial. J Urol 166(6):2065–2071CrossRefPubMed

55.

Leong W, Liong M, Liong Y et al (2014) Does simultaneous inversion during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy improve stone clearance: a long-term, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study. Urology 83:40–44CrossRefPubMed

56.

Liu LR, Li QJ, Wei Q et al (2013) Percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy for the passage of lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD008569

57.

Albanis S, Ather HM, Papatsoris AG et al (2009) Inversion, hydration and diuresis during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: does it improve the stone-free rate for lower pole stone clearance? Urol Int 83:211–216CrossRefPubMed

58.

Tiselius HG (2003) Epidemiology and medical management of stone disease. BJU Int 91:758–767CrossRefPubMed

Title: Shockwave lithotripsy: techniques for improving outcomes
Authors: Tadeusz Kroczak
Kymora B. Scotland
Ben Chew
Kenneth T. Pace
Publication date: 01-09-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 9/2017
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2056-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Shockwave lithotripsy: techniques for improving outcomes

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2017

Androgen deprivation therapy and the risk of parkinsonism in men with prostate cancer

Stone technology: intracorporeal lithotripters

Simple and practical nomograms for predicting the stone-free rate after shock wave lithotripsy in patients with a solitary upper ureteral stone

Perioperative chemotherapy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a comprehensive review

Peri-operative allogeneic blood transfusion and outcomes after radical cystectomy: a population-based study

Is there room for behavioral and modifiable health-related targets in the lower urinary tract symptoms’ scenario