Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Removal of ureteral stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic procedures. What can we learn from the literature in terms of results and treatment efforts?

  • Invited Review
  • Published:
Urological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A literature review was made to obtain information on the treatment efforts required for a successful removal of ureteral stones when extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or ureteroscopic stone extraction or disintegration (URS) were used as primary procedures. Data were collected from 59 reports on ESWL and 23 on URS. The study thereby comprised 20,659 patients primarily treated with ESWL and 5,520 treated with URS. A treatment index (TI) was formulated from the total number of patients (N TOT ), the number of stone free patients (N SF ), the number of patients with retreatment (N RE ), auxiliary procedures (N AUX ) and general or regional anaesthesia (N ANE ). The difference between the TI and the efficiency quotients normally used was the incorporation of the factor N ANE that reflected the need for general or regional anaesthesia. TI had the following form:

$$ {\text{TI}} = N_{{SF}} /{\left( {N_{{TOT}} + N_{{RE}} + N_{{AUX}} + N_{{ANE}} } \right)} $$

When the groups of treated patients were considered in this way, TI was significantly higher for the patients treated with ESWL than for those treated with URS (P=0.007). The median (range) for the groups of ESWL-treated patients was 0.50 (0.25–0.90) and for patients treated with URS 0.42 (0.26–0.94). For the combined groups of patients, the TI-values were 0.54 and 0.40, respectively. Although the average retreatment for URS was only 2.2% compared with 12.1 percent for ESWL, the need for general/regional anaesthesia was 94.3% and 28.3% in the two groups, respectively. The advantage of a lower rate of retreatment in patients primarily referred to URS was thus obviously counterbalanced by the much higher need for anaesthesia. For ureteral stones treated with ESWL in the author’s department using Dornier HM3, MFL 5000, and Modulith SLX lithotripters, stone free rates of 96%, 97% an 95% were associated with TI-values of 0.61, 0.60 and 0.63, respectively. Both ESWL and URS are excellent procedures for the removal of stones from the ureter. In addition to the different degrees of invasiveness, the need for anaesthesia has to be considered in an objective comparison of the two methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pearle MS, Nadler R, Bercowsky E, Chen C, Dunn M, Figenshau S, Hoenig DM, McDoughall EM, Mutz J, Nakada SY, Shalhav AL, Sundaram C, Wolf JS, Clayman RV (2001) Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management ureteral calculi. J Urol 166: 1255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Preminger GM, Clayman R (1989) The changing face of lithotripsy: impact of “second generation” machines. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Endourology and ESWL, November 27–30, 1989, Kyoto, Abstract P7-18

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rassweiler J, Henkel TO, Köhrmann KU, Potempa D, Jünemann KP, Alken P (1992) Lithotripter technology: present and future. J Endourol 6: 1

    Google Scholar 

  4. Newman DM, Coury T, Lingeman JE, Mertz JH, Mosbaugh PG, Steele RE, Knapp PM (1987) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children. J Urol 136:238

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lingeman JE, Shirell WL. Newman DM, Mosbaugh PG, Steele RE, Woods JR (1987) Management of upper ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 138: 720

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cole RS, Shuttleworth KE (1988) Is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy suitable treatment for lower ureteric stones? Br J Urol 62: 525

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. El-Raqih SR. Husain I, Ekman PE, Sharman ND, Charkrabarty A, Talic R (1988) Primary choice of intervention for distal ureteric stone: ureteroscopy or ESWL? Br J Urol 62: 13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Frick J, Kohle R, Kunit G (1988) Experience with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children. Eur Urol 14: 181

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fetner CD, Preminger GM, Seger J, Lea T (1988) Treatment of ureteral calculi by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at a multi-use center. J Urol 139: 1192

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Holden D, Rao PN (1989) Ureteral stones: the results of primary in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 142: 37

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Feria G, Mendoza A, Gabilonda F, Kasep J, Sanchez C (1990) In situ treatment of ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy using electromagnetic generator. J Urol 143: 248A

    Google Scholar 

  12. Netto NRJr, Lemos GC, Claro JFA (1990) In situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for calculi. J Urol 144: 253

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Keeler J, Mc Namara T, Dorey FO. Milsten RE (1990) De novo extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: treatment of choice. J Endourol 4: 71

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tubaro A, Miano L, Trucchi A, Carliccini A, Begani A, Provinciali RB, Furbetta A (1990) Lithiasis of pelvic ureter: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in prone sitting position on a Sonolith 3000 lithotriptor. J Urol 143: 249 A

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJM, Debruyne FMJ (1990) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of calculi in lower third of the ureter: randomised comparison of in situ treatment with loop catheter. J Endourol 4: 399

    Google Scholar 

  16. Myers D (1990) Triangle Lithotripsy Corp experience with 300 patients with Siemens Lithostar. Abstract

  17. Schmidt A, Rassweiler J, Gumpinger R, Mayer R, Eisenberger F (1990) Minimally invasive treatment of ureteric calculi using modern techniques. Br J Urol 65: 242

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. D’Hallewin MA, Baert L (1991). Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in situ treatment for ureteral stones. J Litho Stone Dis 3: 45

    Google Scholar 

  19. Morse RM, Resnick MI (1991) Ureteral calculi natural history and treatment in an era of advanced technology. J Urol 145: 263

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin CM (1992) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children: experience with the multifunctional lithotripter MFL 5000. Acta Paediatr Sin 33: 357

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cass AS (1992) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi. J Urol 147: 1495

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mobley B, Myers DA, Grine WB, Jenkins J M, Jordan WR (1993) Low energy lithotripsy with the Lithostar: treatment results of 19,962 renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol 149: 1419

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas R, Macaluso JN, Vadenberg T, Salvatore FT (1993) An innovative approach to management of lower third ureteral calculi. J Urol 149: 1427

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Erturk E, Herrman E, Cockett ATK (1993) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones. J Urol 149: 1425

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Harada M, Inaba Y Okamoto M (1994) Treatment of ureteral stones by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: with ureteral catheter or in situ. J Urol 8: 9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Myers DA, Mobley TB, Jenkins JM, Grine WB, Jordan WR (1995) Pediatric low energy lithotripsy with the lithostar. J Urol 153: 453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cass AS (1995) Comparison of first generation (Dornier HM3) and second generation (Medstone STS) lithotripter: treatment results with 13,864 renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol 153: 588

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nakada YS, Pearle MS, Soble JJ, Gardner SM, McLennan BL, Clayman RV (1995) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of middle ureteral stones: are ureteral stents necessary? Urology 46: 649

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cass AS (1996) Comparison of first generation (Dornier HM3) and second-generation (Medstone STS) lithotripters: treatment results with 145 renal and ureteral calculi in children. J Endourol 10: 493

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Park H, Park M, Park T (1998). Two-year experience with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy v ureteroscopic manipulation. J Endourol 12: 501

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Küpeli B, Biri H, Isen K, Onaran M, Alkibay T, Karaogan Û, Bozkirli I (1998) Treatment of ureteral stones: comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endourologic alternatives. Eur Urol 34: 474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJM, De La Rosette JJMCH, Stultiens GNM, Beerlage HP, Arends AJ, Debruyne FMJ (1998) Treatment of mid- and lower ureteric calculi: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy. A comparison of costs, morbidity and effectiveness. Br J Urol 81: 31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ghobish A (1998) In situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of middle and lower ureteral stones: a boosted, stentless ventral technique. Eur Urol 34: 93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Joshi HB, Obadeyi OO, Rao PN (1999) A comparative analysis of nephrostomy: JJ stent and urgent in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for obstructing ureteric stones. BJU Int 84: 264

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Turk TMT, Jenkins AD (1999) A comparison of ureteroscopy to in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol 161: 45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Strohmaier WL, Schubert G, Rosenkranz, Weigl A (1999) Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Eur Urol 36: 376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Virgili G, Mearini E, Micali S, Miano R, Vespasiani G, Porena M (1999) Extracorporeal piezoelectric shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones: are second-generation lithotripters obsolete? J Endourol 13: 543

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bendhack ML, Grimm MC, Ackermann R, Vögeli T (1999) Primary treatment of ureteral stones by new multi line lithotripter. J Endourol 13: 339

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gnanapragasam VJ, Ramsden PDR, Murthy LSN, Thomas DJ (1999) Primary in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteric calculi: results with a third generation lithotripter. BJU Int 84: 770

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Biri H, Küpeli B, Isen K, Sinik Z, Karaoglan Û, Bozkirli I (1999) Treatment of lower ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or intracorporeal lithotripsy? J Endourol 13: 77

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Peschel R, Janetschek G, Bartsch G (1999) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 162: 1909

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pardalidis NP, Kosmaoglou EV, Kapotis CG (1999) Endoscopy vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of distal ureteral stones: a year’s experience. J Urol 13: 161

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Pace KT, Weir MJ, Taroq N, D’a Honey RJ (2000) Low success rate of repeat shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones after failed initial treatment. J Urol 164: 1905

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cox F, Orvieto M, Bustos M, Lybg R, Stein C, Hinrichs A, San Francisco I (2000) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of 2000 urinary calculi with the Modulith SL-20: success and failure according to size and location of stones. J Endourol 14: 239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ather MH, Memon A (2000) Therapeutic efficacy of Dornier MPL 9000 for prevesical calculi and judged by efficiency quotient. J Endourol 14: 551

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ather MH, Paryani J, Memon A, Sulaiman MN (2001) A 10-years experience of managing ureteric calculi: changing trends towards endourological intervention—is there a role for open surgery? BJU Int 88: 173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tan YM, Yip SK, Chong TW, Wong MYC, Chent C, Foo KT (2002) Clinical experience and results of ESWL treatment for 3,093 urinary calculi with the Storz Modulith SL 20 lithotripter at the Singapore General Hospital. Scand J Urol 36: 363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Lam JS, Greene TD, Gupta M (2002) Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 167: 1972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lalak NJ, Moussa SA, Smith G, Tolley DA (2002) The Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter: the first ureteral calculi. J Urol 16: 645

    Google Scholar 

  50. Jermini FR, Danuser H, Mattei A, Burkhard FC, Studer UE (2002) Non-invasive anaesthesia and radiation-free extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for stones in the most distal ureter. J Urol 168: 446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Portis AJ, Van Y, Pattaras JG, Andreoni C, Moore R, Clayman RV (2003) Matched pair analysis of shock wave lithotripsy effectiveness for comparison of lithotriptors. J Urol 169: 58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hochreiter WW, Danuser H, Perrig M, Studer UE (2003) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi: what a powerful machine can achieve. J Urol 169: 878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Erhard M, Salwen J, Bagley D (1996) Ureteroscopic removal of mid and proximal ureteral calculi. J Urol 155: 38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hosking DH, Bard RJ (1996) Ureteroscopy with intravenous sedation for treatment of distal ureteral calculi: a safe and effective alternative to shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 156: 899

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Netto NRJr, De Almeida Claro J, Esteves SC, Andradse EFM (1997) Ureteroscopic removal in the distal ureter. Why change? J Urol 157: 2081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Park H, Park M, Park T (1998) Two-year experience with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy v ureteroscopic manipulation. J Endourol 12: 501

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Küpeli B, Biri H, Isen K, Onaran M, Alkibay T, Karaogan Ü, Bozkirli I (1998) Treatment of ureteral stones: comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endourologic alternatives. Eur Urol 34: 474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJM, De La Rosette JJMCH, Stultiens GNM, Beerlage HP, Arends AJ, Debruyne FMJ (1998) Treatment of mid- and lower ureteric calculi: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy. A comparison of costs, morbidity and effectiveness. Br J Urol 81: 31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Devarajan R, Ashraf M, Beck RO. Lemberger RJ, Taylor MC (1998) Holmium:YAG lasertripsy for ureteric calculi: an experience of 300 procedures. Br J Urol 82: 342

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Pardalidis NP, Kosmaoglou EV, Kapotis CG (1999) Endoscopy vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of distal ureteral stones: a year’s experience. J Endourol 13: 161

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Puppo P, Ricciotti G. Bozzo W, Intrini C (1999) Primary endoscopic treatment of ureteric calculi. Eur Urol 36: 48

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Keeley FXJr, Pillai MM, Smith G, Chisofos, Tolley DA (1999) Electrokinetic lithotripsy: safety, efficacy and limitations of a new form of ballistic lithotripsy. BJU Int 84: 261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Matsuoka K, Lida S, Inoue M, Yoshii S, Arai K, Tomiyasu K, Noda S (1999) Endoscopic lithotripsy with the holmium:YAG laser. Lasers Surg Med 25: 389

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Biri H, Küpeli B, Isen K, Sinik Z, Karaoglan Ü, Bozkirli I (1999) Treatment of lower ureteral stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or intracoporeal lithotripsy? J Endo 13: 77–81

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Turk TMT, Jenkins AD (1999) A comparison of ureteroscopy to in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol 161: 45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Menezes P, Dickinson A, Timoney AG (1999) Flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of refractory upper urinary tract stones. BJU Int 84: 257

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Scarpa RM, De Lisa A, Porru D, Usai E (1999) Holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy. Eur Urol 35: 233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Menezes P, Kumar PVS, Tomoney AG (2000) A randomized trial comparing lithoclast with an electrokinetic lithotripter in the management of ureteric stones. BJU Int85: 22

    Google Scholar 

  69. Harmano S, Nomura H, Kinsuyi H, Oikawa T, Suzuki N, Tanaka M, Murakami S, Igarashi T, Ito H (2000) Experience with ureteral stone management in 1082 patients using semirigid ureteroscopes. Urol Internat 65: 106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Hollenbeck BK, Schuster TG, Fareber GJ, Wolf JSJr (2001) Comparison of outcome of ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi located above and below the pelvic brim. Urology 58: 351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Lam JS, Greene TD, Gupta M (2002) Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 167: 1972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Tiselius HG (2000) Comprehensive metabolic evaluation of stone formers is cost effective. In: Rodgers A, Hibbert BE, Hess B, Khan S, Preminger GM (eds) Urolithiasis 2000. University of Cape Town, Cape Town, p 349

  73. Olsburg J, Ramsay J (2003) Lithotripsy for ureteric stones: throw away the ureteroscope. BJU Int 91: 771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Renal Stone Unit, Department of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge and Karolinska Institutet, Center for Surgical Sciences, 141 86 Stockholm, Sweden

    Hans-Göran Tiselius

Authors
  1. Hans-Göran Tiselius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans-Göran Tiselius.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tiselius, HG. Removal of ureteral stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic procedures. What can we learn from the literature in terms of results and treatment efforts?. Urol Res 33, 185–190 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-005-0462-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-005-0462-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation