Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Urolithiasis 5/2016

01-10-2016 | Original Paper

The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10–20 mm) renal stones

Authors: Vera Y. Chung, Benjamin W. Turney

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 5/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Many centres favour endourological management over shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the management of moderate-sized (10–20 mm) renal stones. International guidelines support all available modalities for the treatment of these stones. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of SWL in the treatment of 10- to 20-mm renal stones. From January 2013 to October 2014, all patients with a renal stone measuring between 10 and 20 mm in maximum diameter on CT scan that were eligible for lithotripsy were included. 130 consecutive patients were evaluated. Demographics, location of stone within the kidney, number of SWL sessions and treatment outcomes were analysed. Treatment success was classified into complete stone clearance and the presence of clinically insignificant residual fragments <4 mm (CIRF). 119 patients (92 %) completed treatment and radiological follow-up. Eleven patients were excluded due to incomplete follow-up data. The mean age was 56.8 (23–88). Male to female ratio was 1.9:1 (78:41) and the mean BMI was 28.4 (17.9–58). The mean stone size was 12.8 mm (10–14 mm: n = 87; 15–20 mm: n = 32). The mean number of treatments was 2.14 and 2.82 for stones 10–14 and 15–20 mm, respectively. Overall treatment success was 66.4 % (combined complete stone clearance and CIRFs). Subdivided by stone size <15 mm and ≥15 mm, the success rate was 70.4 and 53.1 %, respectively. The treatment success by stone location was 65, 64 and 70 % for upper, middle and lower pole stones, respectively and 67 % for PUJ stones. For those who failed SWL treatment, the majority 50 % (n = 20) were managed expectantly, 42.5 % (n = 17) required URS, and 7.5 % (n = 3) required PNL. This study suggests that SWL has an efficacy for treating larger renal stones (10–20 mm) that is equivalent to success rates for smaller stones in other series. As a low-risk and non-invasive procedure SWL should be considered a first-line treatment for these stones.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Karatag T, Tepeler A, Silay MS, Bodakci MN, Buldu I, Daggulli M, Hatipoglu NK, Istanbulluoglu MO, Armagan A (2015) A comparison of two percutaneous nephrolithotomy techniques for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones of sizes 10–20 mm: microperc vs miniperc. Urology 85(5):1015–1018. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.02.010 CrossRefPubMed Karatag T, Tepeler A, Silay MS, Bodakci MN, Buldu I, Daggulli M, Hatipoglu NK, Istanbulluoglu MO, Armagan A (2015) A comparison of two percutaneous nephrolithotomy techniques for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones of sizes 10–20 mm: microperc vs miniperc. Urology 85(5):1015–1018. doi:10.​1016/​j.​urology.​2015.​02.​010 CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Hatipoglu NK, Sancaktutar AA, Tepeler A, Bodakci MN, Penbegul N, Atar M, Bozkurt Y, Soylemez H, Silay MS, Istanbulluoglu MO, Akman T, Armagan A (2013) Comparison of shockwave lithotripsy and microperc for treatment of kidney stones in children. J Endourol Endourol Soc 27(9):1141–1146. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0066 CrossRef Hatipoglu NK, Sancaktutar AA, Tepeler A, Bodakci MN, Penbegul N, Atar M, Bozkurt Y, Soylemez H, Silay MS, Istanbulluoglu MO, Akman T, Armagan A (2013) Comparison of shockwave lithotripsy and microperc for treatment of kidney stones in children. J Endourol Endourol Soc 27(9):1141–1146. doi:10.​1089/​end.​2013.​0066 CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Tepeler A, Armagan A, Sancaktutar AA, Silay MS, Penbegul N, Akman T, Hatipoglu NK, Ersoz C, Erdem MR, Akcay M (2013) The role of microperc in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi. J Endourol Endourol Soc 27(1):13–18. doi:10.1089/end.2012.0422 CrossRef Tepeler A, Armagan A, Sancaktutar AA, Silay MS, Penbegul N, Akman T, Hatipoglu NK, Ersoz C, Erdem MR, Akcay M (2013) The role of microperc in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi. J Endourol Endourol Soc 27(1):13–18. doi:10.​1089/​end.​2012.​0422 CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M (2014) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007044.pub3 PubMed Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M (2014) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi:10.​1002/​14651858.​CD007044.​pub3 PubMed
7.
go back to reference Cecen K, Karadag MA, Demir A, Bagcioglu M, Kocaaslan R, Sofikerim M (2014) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper/middle calyx kidney stones of 10–20 mm: a retrospective analysis of 174 patients. SpringerPlus 3:557. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-557 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cecen K, Karadag MA, Demir A, Bagcioglu M, Kocaaslan R, Sofikerim M (2014) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper/middle calyx kidney stones of 10–20 mm: a retrospective analysis of 174 patients. SpringerPlus 3:557. doi:10.​1186/​2193-1801-3-557 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Estrade V, Bensalah K, Bringer JP, Chabannes E, Carpentier X, Conort P, Denis E, Dore B, Gautier Jr, Hadjadj H, Hubet J, Hoznek A, Lechevallier E, Meria P, Mozer P, Saussine C, Yonneau L, Traxer O (2013) Place of the flexible ureterorenoscopy first choice for the treatment of kidney stones. Survey results practice committee of the AFU lithiasis completed in 2011. Progres en urologie: journal de l’Association francaise d’urologie et de la Societe francaise d’urologie 23(1):22–28. doi:10.1016/j.purol.2012.09.003 CrossRef Estrade V, Bensalah K, Bringer JP, Chabannes E, Carpentier X, Conort P, Denis E, Dore B, Gautier Jr, Hadjadj H, Hubet J, Hoznek A, Lechevallier E, Meria P, Mozer P, Saussine C, Yonneau L, Traxer O (2013) Place of the flexible ureterorenoscopy first choice for the treatment of kidney stones. Survey results practice committee of the AFU lithiasis completed in 2011. Progres en urologie: journal de l’Association francaise d’urologie et de la Societe francaise d’urologie 23(1):22–28. doi:10.​1016/​j.​purol.​2012.​09.​003 CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Chandhoke P, Lingeman JE, Denstedt JD, Kahn R, Assimos DG, Nakada SY (1998) Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol Endourol Soc 12(2):113–119CrossRef Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Chandhoke P, Lingeman JE, Denstedt JD, Kahn R, Assimos DG, Nakada SY (1998) Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol Endourol Soc 12(2):113–119CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Zheng C, Yang H, Luo J, Xiong B, Wang H, Jiang Q (2015) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment for renal stones 1–2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. doi:10.1007/s00240-015-0799-8 Zheng C, Yang H, Luo J, Xiong B, Wang H, Jiang Q (2015) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment for renal stones 1–2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. doi:10.​1007/​s00240-015-0799-8
15.
go back to reference Neisius A, Wollner J, Thomas C, Roos FC, Brenner W, Hampel C, Preminger GM, Thuroff JW, Gillitzer R (2013) Treatment efficacy and outcomes using a third generation shockwave lithotripter. BJU Int 112(7):972–981. doi:10.1111/bju.12159 CrossRefPubMed Neisius A, Wollner J, Thomas C, Roos FC, Brenner W, Hampel C, Preminger GM, Thuroff JW, Gillitzer R (2013) Treatment efficacy and outcomes using a third generation shockwave lithotripter. BJU Int 112(7):972–981. doi:10.​1111/​bju.​12159 CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference 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(1):63–67. doi:10.1007/s11255-005-3155-z CrossRefPubMed 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(1):63–67. doi:10.​1007/​s11255-005-3155-z CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Madbouly K, Sheir KZ, Elsobky E, Eraky I, Kenawy M (2002) Risk factors for the formation of a steinstrasse after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a statistical model. J Urol 167(3):1239–1242CrossRefPubMed Madbouly K, Sheir KZ, Elsobky E, Eraky I, Kenawy M (2002) Risk factors for the formation of a steinstrasse after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a statistical model. J Urol 167(3):1239–1242CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10–20 mm) renal stones
Authors
Vera Y. Chung
Benjamin W. Turney
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Urolithiasis / Issue 5/2016
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0857-2

Other articles of this Issue 5/2016

Urolithiasis 5/2016 Go to the issue