Evaluation the success rate of extra corporal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in patients with urinary stones
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-3933.ijam20183893Keywords:
Ardabil, Extracorporeal crushing, Success, Urinary tract stonesAbstract
Background: Urinary stones are one of the most common and earliest known human diseases. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is known as the most common method for treating urinary stones less than 20-25 mm. The aim of this study was to evaluation the success rate of ESWL in patients with urinary stones.
Methods: In this cross-sectional descriptive study 200 patients with urinary stones between 7-25 mm which were candidates for lithotripsy, enrolled in the study. Patients with coagulation disorders, urinary or other organ transplantation, pregnant women, uncontrolled blood pressure patients, and those who are contraindicated for drug use have been excluded from the study. The process was carried out by an operator and by the Dornier Compact Delta II lithotriptor. Two weeks later, the patients were re-visited, and ultrasound was performed, and the success rate of stones was measured and recorded and classified in three groups complete response, partial response and failure in treatment. Collected data analysed by statistical methods in SPSS version 19.
Results: Efficacy of Arian 101 lithotriptor in removing of renal stones, were found to be 74% complete response, 25.5% partial response while 0.5% of subjects had no response. There was significant positive correlation between the size of stones before and after lithotripsy (r=0.49, p=0.001). In stones upper than 10 mm, the upper calices stones had 100% complete response. Also, in stones lower than 10 mm, the upper calices stones had 100% complete response.
Conclusions: The results showed that Dornier Compact Delta II lithotriptor has more efficacy in treatment of stones. In stones below 10 mm, the success rate of treatment was generally higher, especially in the upper calices stones and pelvic. In stones larger than 10 mm, the success rate was slightly lower, but in the case of upper calices stones, the complete response was 100%.
References
Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, Lin CL, Chen CS. Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol. 2004 Nov 1;172(5):1899-902.
Mehmet NM, Ender O. Effect of urinary stone disease and its treatment on renal function. World J Nephrol. 2015 May 6;4(2):271.
Abdel‐Khalek M, Sheir KZ, Mokhtar AA, Eraky I, Kenawy M, Bazeed M. Prediction of success rate after extracorporeal shock‐wave lithotripsy of renal stones A multivariate analysis model. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2004 Jan 1;38(2):161-7.
Esterabadi SA, Basiri A, Semnani MN, Shafi H, Iranpour A. A comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (eswl) and ureteroscopy (tul) in the treatment of impacted lower ureteral stones: Fm1. 3-b6. Int J Urol. 2004 Oct 1;11:A32.
Motley G, Dalrymple N, Keesling C, Fischer J, Harmon W. Hounsfield unit density in the determination of urinary stone composition. Urol. 2001;58(2):170-3.
Yang CP, Cherng CH, Wong CS, Ho ST. Effects of intravenous ketorolac and fentanyl combined with midazolam on analgesia and side effects during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Acta Anaesthesiologica Sinica. 2002 Mar 1;40:9-12.
Mehrabi S, Fararooei M, Hadinia A. Efficacy of Arian 101 lithotriptor in treatment of renal and upper ureteral stones. Armaghane Danesh. 2011;16(4):354-61.
Pezhman M, Tadaion A. Results of extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in Shiraz University of medical science. Urol J. 1995;2(5-6):75-80.
Serel TA, Özguner F, Soyupek S. Prevention of shock wave-induced renal oxidative stress by melatonin: an experimental study. Urol Res. 2004 Feb 1;32(1):69-71.
Irani D, Eshratkhah R, Amin-Sharifi A. Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy in complex urolithiasis in the era of advanced endourologic procedures. Urol J. 2009 May 23;2(1):13-9.
Rubin J, Arger P, Pollack H, Banner M, Coleman B, Mintz M, et al. Kidney changes after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: CT evaluation. Radiol. 1987;162(1):21-4.
Grivas N, Skolarikos A, Venetis C, Kallidonis P, Stavrou S, et al. 65 The role of nifedipine as medical expulsive therapy (MET) after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Suppl. 2015;14(8):e1386.
Kontos S, Papatsoris A, Nalagatla SK. Flexible ureterorenoscopy and Ho: YAG laser fragmentation for stones with a mean density greater than 900HU: An alternative to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Hellenic Urol. 2015 Dec 27;27(4).
Chen YZ, Lin WR, Lee CC, Chow YC, Tsai WK, Chiang PK, et al. Comparison of Electrohydraulic and Electromagnetic Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Upper Urinary Tract Stones in Elderly Patients. Int J Gerontol. 2017;11(3):179-81.
De La Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P, Keeley F, Matsuda T, Pearle M, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourology. 2014;28(2):131-9.
Grivas N, Skolarikos A, Venetis C, Kallidonis P, Stavrou S, Rountos T, et al. 390 The role of α-blockers as medical expulsive therapy (MET) after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Euro Urol Suppl. 2015 Apr 1;14(2):e390.
Castro EP, Osther PJ, Jinga V, Razvi H, Stravodimos KG, Parikh K, et al. Differences in ureteroscopic stone treatment and outcomes for distal, mid-, proximal, or multiple ureteral locations: the clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):102-9.
Nielsen TK, Jensen JB. Efficacy of commercialised extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy service: a review of 589 renal stones. BMC Urol. 2017;17(1):59.
Hollander JB, Van Horn AC, Knapp JR PM. In vitro calcium oxalate lithotripsy: Comparison of Dornier HM3 and Siemens Lithostar. J Endourol. 1993 Dec;7(6):461-4.
Politis G, Griffith D. ESWL: stone-free efficacy based upon stone size and location. World J Urol. 1987;5(4):255-8.
Dadkhah F, Akbarnezhad A. Efficacy of eSWL in treatment of ureteral stones. Urol J. 2001;8(29):45-8.
Salem S, Mehrsai A, Zartab H, Shahdadi N, Pourmand G. Complications and outcomes following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective study of 3,241 patients. Urol Res. 2010;38(2):135-42.
Mombaini H, Ababaf M. Results of ESWL in Sina hospital of Ahvaz. Ahvaz Res Sci J. 1997;4(25):49-53.
