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 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Urolithiasis
Published in: Urolithiasis 2/2014

01-04-2014 | Original Paper

Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones

Authors: Okan Bas, Hasan Bakirtas, Nevzat Can Sener, Ufuk Ozturk, Can Tuygun, H. N. Goksel Goktug, M. Abdurrahim Imamoglu

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

To compare success and complication rates of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNL) according to modified clavien grading system of renal pelvis stones between 1 and 2 cm. The results of 149 patients were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were divided into three groups as 52 for SWL, 47 for F-URS and 50 for PNL. Complications were evaluated by modified Clavien grading system. In the first group, stone-free rates after a mean of 2, 6 sessions was 86 % (45/52). In Group 2, this ratio was 91.4 % (43/47), and in Group 3, it was 98 % (49/50). The success rate in Group 3 was significantly higher than other groups. Complication rates for Group 1, 2 and 3 were 7.6 % (4/52), 6.3 % (3/47) and 12 % (6/50), respectively. Although PNL was the most successful technique compared with other techniques, complications were also higher in this group. Even though PNL is the most successful, it should be performed for selected patient groups and indications should be carefully evaluated.
Literature
1.
Johnson CM, Wilson DM, O’Fallon WM, Malek RS, Kurland LT (1979) Renal stone epidemiology: a 25-year study in Rochester Minnesota. Kidney Int 16:624–631PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Hesse A, Brandle E, Wilbert D, Kohrmann KU, Alken P (2003) Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol 44:709–713PubMedCrossRef
4.
Cohen J, Cohen S, Grasso M (2013) Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of large, complex intrarenal and proximal ureteral calculi. BJU Int 111:E127–E131PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111:518–526PubMed
7.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
Deem S, Defade B, Modak A, Emmett M, Martinez F, Davalos J (2011) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for moderate sized kidney stones. Urology 78:739–743PubMedCrossRef
9.
Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck C, Gallucci M, Knoll T, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Sarica K, Turk C, Wolf JS Jr (2007) 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 178:2418–2434PubMedCrossRef
10.
Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ, Pace KT (2011) A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol 25:481–485PubMedCrossRef
11.
Al-Ansari A, As-Sadiq K, Al-Said S, Younis N, Jaleel OA, Shokeir AA (2006) Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol 38:63–67PubMedCrossRef
12.
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 78:759–763PubMedCrossRef
13.
Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, Asakura H, Miyajima A, Oya M, Ohigashi T, Murai M (2006) Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 176:1453–1456PubMedCrossRef
14.
Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, Nyhuis AW, Woods JR (1994) Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 151:663–667PubMed
15.
Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ, Pace KT (2010) Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi. Urol Res 38:307–313PubMedCrossRef
16.
Wang LJ, Wong YC, Chuang CK, Chu SH, Chen CS, See LC, Chiang YJ (2005) Predictions of outcomes of renal stones after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy from stone characteristics determined by unenhanced helical computed tomography: a multivariate analysis. Eur Radiol 15:2238–2243PubMedCrossRef
17.
Abe T, Akakura K, Kawaguchi M, Ueda T, Ichikawa T, Ito H, Nozumi K, Suzuki K (2005) Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large-scale study at a single institution. J Endourol 19:768–773PubMedCrossRef
18.
Egilmez T, Tekin MI, Gonen M, Kilinc F, Goren R, Ozkardes H (2007) Efficacy and safety of a new-generation shockwave lithotripsy machine in the treatment of single renal or ureteral stones: experience with 2670 patients. J Endourol 21:23–27PubMedCrossRef
19.
Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, Sundaram CP, Dunn MD, Shalhav AL, McDougall EM, Clayman RV (2000) Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol 164:1164–1168PubMedCrossRef
20.
Hollenbeck BK, Spencer SL, Faerber GJ (2000) Use of a working channel catheter during flexible ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. J Urol 163:1808–1809PubMedCrossRef
21.
Atis G, Gurbuz C, Arikan O, Canat L, Kilic M, Caskurlu T (2012) Ureteroscopic management with laser lithotripsy of renal pelvic stones. J Endourol 26:983–987PubMedCrossRef
22.
Geavlete P, Seyed Aghamiri SA, Multescu R (2006) Retrograde flexible ureteroscopic approach for pyelocaliceal calculi. Urol J 3:15–19PubMed
23.
Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Nita G, Mirciulescu V, Cauni V (2006) Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol 20:179–185PubMedCrossRef
24.
Harmon WJ, Sershon PD, Blute ML, Patterson DE, Segura JW (1997) Ureteroscopy: current practice and long-term complications. J Urol 157:28–32PubMedCrossRef
25.
Eisenberger F, Rassweiler J, Kallert B, Bub P (1989) Treatment of staghorn calculi. Strategies and results of the combined use of new technics. Urol A 28:138–144
26.
Gu Z, Qi J, Shen H, Liu J, Chen J (2010) Percutaneous nephroscopic with holmium laser and ultrasound lithotripsy for complicated renal calculi. Lasers Med Sci 25:577–580PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, Bapat S, Desai M (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18:715–722PubMedCrossRef
28.
Streem SB, Lammert G (1992) Long-term efficacy of combination therapy for struvite staghorn calculi. J Urol 147:563–566PubMed
29.
Meria P, Milcent S, Desgrandchamps F, Mongiat-Artus P, Duclos JM, Teillac P (2005) Management of pelvic stones larger than 20 mm: laparoscopic transperitoneal pyelolithotomy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urol Int 75:322–326PubMedCrossRef
30.
Resorlu B, Unsal A, Tepeler A, Atis G, Tokatli Z, Oztuna D, Armagan A, Gurbuz C, Caskurlu T, Saglam R (2012) Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children with moderate-size kidney stones: results of multi-institutional analysis. Urology 80:519–523PubMedCrossRef
31.
Collins JW, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney A (2004) Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int 93:1023–1026PubMedCrossRef
32.
Hyams ES, Matlaga BR (2013) Cost-effectiveness treatment strategies for stone disease for the practicing urologist. Urol Clin North Am 40:129–133PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones
Authors
Okan Bas
Hasan Bakirtas
Nevzat Can Sener
Ufuk Ozturk
Can Tuygun
H. N. Goksel Goktug
M. Abdurrahim Imamoglu
Publication date
01-04-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Urolithiasis / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0615-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Urolithiasis 2/2014 Go to the issue

Original Paper

The cost analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in 302 cases

Original Paper

Increasing urinary calcium excretion after ceftriaxone and cephalothin therapy in adults: possible association with urolithiasis

Original Paper

Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm

Original Paper

Initial experience of micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal calculi in 140 renal units

Original Paper

Retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with isolated anomaly of kidney rotation

Original Paper

Ureterolithotripsy in a paediatric population: a single institution’s experience