eISSN: 2299-0054
ISSN: 1895-4588
Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques
Current issue Archive Videoforum Manuscripts accepted About the journal Supplements Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank


4/2018
vol. 13
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Can intervals in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy sessions affect success in the treatment of upper ureteral stones?

Turgay Turan, Ozgur Efioglu, Yavuz Onur Danacioglu, Furkan Sendogan, Meftun Culpan, Bilal Gunaydin, Ramazan Gokhan Atis, Turhan Caskurlu, Asif Yildirim

Videosurgery Miniinv 2018; 13 (4): 507–511
Online publish date: 2018/05/21
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction
Managing upper ureteral stones with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has been done for many years. However, no conclusive data have been found on the intervals required between repeated SWL sessions.

Aim
To identify the most optimal intervals between SWL sessions.

Material and methods
Between September 2015 and December 2016, 80 patients undergoing elective outpatient lithotripsy who required repeated SWL sessions for ureteral stones were evaluated. These patients were categorised into two groups according to different SWL session intervals. The intervals between SWL sessions (n = 40) for the first group lasted one day, whereas those for the second group (n = 40) lasted 1 week. The data recorded during SWL included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, total number of shocks, total energy used and number of sessions. The stone clearance rates, number of urinary tract infections, complication rates and VAS scores were compared between the two groups.

Results
All patients’ clinical outcomes after SWL therapy are shown in Table I. The stone clearance rate for group 1 was 70%, whereas that for group 2 was 72.5% (p = 0.805). Additionally, the number of urinary tract infections, complications and VAS scores were similar for both groups. In group 1, 3 patients had steinstrasse, two suffered from severe renal colic, and one had a urinary tract infection. In group 2, 3 patients endured steinstrasse, and 2 patients experienced severe renal colic during the study.

Conclusions
Short-interval SWL sessions are safe and effective for treating upper ureteral stones, and such sessions do not increase complication rates.

keywords:

shock wave lithotripsy, upper ureteral stones, repeat sessions

references:
C. Türk (Chair) AP, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, et al. Guidelines Associates: S. Dabestani TD, Grivas N, Ruhayel Y. Eau Guidelines On Urolithiasis (Limited text update March 2017). 2017 [cited 14.12.2017]; Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/?type=pocket-guidelines
Drake T, Grivas N, Dabestani S, et al. What are the benefits and harms of ureteroscopy compared with shock-wave lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral stones? A systematic review. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 772-86.
Cui X, Ji F, Yan H, et al. Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis. Urology 2015; 85: 748-56.
Hadj-Moussa M, Brown JA. Effect of high shock number on acute complication development after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol 2013; 27: 1015-9.
Kadyan B, Sabale V, Mane D, et al. Large proximal ureteral stones: ideal treatment modality? Urol Ann 2016; 8: 189-92.
Niwa N, Matsumoto K, Miyahara M, et al. Simple and practical nomograms for predicting the stone-free rate after shock wave lithotripsy in patients with a solitary upper ureteral stone. World J Urol 2017; 35: 1455-61.
Aboutaleb H, Omar M, Salem S, Elshazly M. Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium: yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser lithotripsy. SAGE Open Med 2016; 4: 2050312116685180.
Harrogate SR, Yick LS, Williams Jr JC, et al. Quantification of the range of motion of kidney and ureteral stones during shockwave lithotripsy in conscious patients. J Endourol 2016; 30: 406-10.
Skolarikos A, Grivas N, Kallidonis P, et al. The efficacy of medical expulsive therapy (MET) in improving stone-free rate and stone expulsion time, after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for upper urinary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urology 2015; 86: 1057-64.
Chaussy CG, Tiselius HG. How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Urolithiasis 2018; 46: 3-17.
Park HS, Gong MK, Yoon CY, et al. Computed tomography-based novel prediction model for the outcome of shockwave lithotripsy in proximal ureteral stones. J Endourol 2016; 30: 810-6.
Nguyen DP, Hnilicka S, Kiss B, et al. Optimization of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy delivery rates achieves excellent outcomes for ureteral stones: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 2015; 194: 418-23.
Yazici O, Tuncer M, Sahin C, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy in ureteral stones: evaluation of patient and stone related predictive factors. Int Braz J Urol 2015; 41: 676-82.
Kilinc MF, Doluoglu OG, Karakan T, et al. Ureteroscopy in proximal ureteral stones after shock wave lithotripsy failure: is it safe and efficient or dangerous? Can Urol Assoc J 2015; 9: E718-22.
  
Quick links
© 2018 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe