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
World Journal of Urology
Published in: World Journal of Urology 5/2019

01-05-2019 | Original Article

SWL outcome in artificial hydronephrotic vs. non-hydronephrotic kidney for preschool children with high-density renal stones

Authors: Mostafa AbdelRazek, Ahmed Hassan, Mohammed S. AbdelKader, Ahmad Abolyosr

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 5/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To assess the effect of artificial hydronephrosis on the result of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in preschool children.

Materials and methods

A prospective randomized trial was performed between January 2013 and January 2017 with 300 pediatric patients, having kidney stones with a size of 1–2 cm and a density of 750–1100 HU. The patients were randomized into two groups: group A, in which a ureteric catheter was fixed and artificial hydronephrosis was performed by fluid irrigation prior to SWL, and group B which did not undergo hydronephrosis. SWL outcomes were compared between two groups.

Results

In total, 153 cases were assigned to group A, and 147 cases were assigned to group B. Regarding demographic data, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. There were also no statistically significant differences in the number of shocks and energy power needed for each group. The results of SWL after the first session favored group A with a stone-free rate (SFR) of 90.8% vs. 75.5% for group B. The SFR after SWL was significantly in favor of group A (94.1%) vs. (86.4%) for group B.

Conclusion

The use of an artificial hydronephrosis technique to make interface around the stone improves stone-free rate and decreases the need for retreatment after SWL.
Literature
1.
Holman E et al (2004) Endoscopic management of pediatric urolithiasis in a developing country. Urology 63:159–162CrossRefPubMed
2.
Sarkissian A et al (2001) Pediatric urolithiasis in Armenia: a study of 198 patients observed from 1991 to 1999. Pediatr Nephrol 16(9):728–732CrossRefPubMed
3.
Muslumanoglu AY, Tefekli A, Sarilar O, Binbay M, Altunrende F, Ozkuvanci U (2000) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as first line treatment alternative for urinary tract stones in children: a large scale retrospective analysis. J Urol 170(6 Pt 1):2405–2408
4.
El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Abou-El-Ghar ME, Awad BA, Sheir KZ (2013) Kidney stone size and hounsfield units predict successful shockwave lithotripsy in children. Urology 81(4):880–884CrossRefPubMed
5.
El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Awad BA, Elhalwagy SM, Elshal AM, Sheir KZ (2013) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones in pediatric patients: a multivariate analysis model for estimating the stone-free probability. Int J Urol 20(12):1205–1210CrossRefPubMed
6.
Habib EI, Morsi HA, Elsheemy MS, Aboulela W, Eissa MA (2013) Effect of size and site on the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of proximal urinary stones in children. J Pediat Urol 9(3):323–327CrossRef
7.
Afshar K, McLorie G, Papanikolaou F et al (2004) Outcome of small residual stone fragments following shock wave lithotripsy in children. J Urol 172(4 Pt 2):1600–1603CrossRef
8.
Nicely ER, Maggio MI, Kuhn EJ (1992) The use of a cystoscopically placed cobra catheter for directed irrigation of lower pole caliceal stones during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 148(3 Pt 2):1036–1039CrossRefPubMed
9.
Graham JB, Nelson JB (1994) Percutaneous caliceal irrigation during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole renal calculi. J Urol 152(6 Pt 2):2227CrossRefPubMed
10.
Schmiedit E, Chaussy C (1984) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of kidney and ureter stones. Urol Int 39:193CrossRef
11.
Brendel W (1986) Shock waves: a new physical principle in medicine Eur. Surg Res 18:177CrossRef
12.
Whelan JP, Finlayson B (1988) An expermintal model for the systematic investigation. J Urol 140:395CrossRefPubMed
13.
Thomas R, Frentz JM, Harmon E et al (1992) Effect of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on renal function and body height in pediatric patients. J Urol 148:1064CrossRefPubMed
14.
Nazli O, Cal C, Ozyurt C et al (1998) Results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the pediatric age group. Eur Urol 33:333CrossRefPubMed
15.
Longo JA, Netto NR Jr, Muslumanoglu AY, Tefekli AH, Altunrende F, Karadag MA (1995) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in children. Urology 46:550CrossRefPubMed
16.
Baykal M, Akcay M (2006) Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteric stones in children. Int Urol Nephrol 38(2):225–229CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ather MH, Noor MA (2003) Does size and site matter for renal stones up to 30 mm in size in children treated by extracorporeal lithotripsy? Urology 61(1):212–215 (discussion 215) CrossRefPubMed
18.
Rodrigues Netto N, Jr Longo JA, Ikonomidis JA, Rodrigues Netto M (2002) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children. J Urol 167(5):2164–2166CrossRefPubMed
19.
Ehreth JT, Drach GW, Arnett ML, Barnett RB, Govan D, Lingeman J et al (1994) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: multicenter study of kidney and upper ureter versusmiddle and lower ureter treatments. J Urol 152(5 Pt 1):1379–1385CrossRefPubMed
20.
Penn HA, De Marco RT, Sherman AK, Gatti JM, Murphy JP (2009) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal calculi. J Urol 182(4):1824–1827CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
SWL outcome in artificial hydronephrotic vs. non-hydronephrotic kidney for preschool children with high-density renal stones
Authors
Mostafa AbdelRazek
Ahmed Hassan
Mohammed S. AbdelKader
Ahmad Abolyosr
Publication date
01-05-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2471-8

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

World Journal of Urology 5/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

Modifications to Botulinum toxin A delivery in the management of detrusor overactivity recalcitrant to initial injections: a review

Original Article

Shock wave lithotripsy versus endoscopic cystolitholapaxy in the management of patients presenting with calcular acute urinary retention: a randomised controlled trial

Original Article

Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound targeted biopsy versus standard systematic biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer detection: results of a prospective cohort study with 1024 patients

Original Article

68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC PET/CT imaging in patients with recurrent prostate cancer

Original Article

Medical therapy versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic enlargement (BPE): a cost minimisation analysis

Review

Mortality from kidney stone disease (KSD) as reported in the literature over the last two decades: a systematic review