Emergency Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Acute Renal Colic Caused by Upper Urinary-Tract Stones

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey Kravchick ◽  
Igor Bunkin ◽  
Eugeny Stepnov ◽  
Ronit Peled ◽  
Leonid Agulansky ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 195 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Umari ◽  
Stefano Bucci ◽  
Michele Rizzo ◽  
Nicola Pavan ◽  
Giovanni Liguori ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-41
Author(s):  
Dipak Kumar Thakur

Introduction: Due to its non-invasive nature, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the preferred treatment modality for uncomplicated renal and ureteral stone < 20 mm in diameter. The success rate of it ranges from 46% to 91% depending on various factors. Objective: To assess the outcome of ESWL as monotherapy in uncomplicated solitary renal and upper ureteric calculus ranging from 10mm to 20mm. Methods: In this retrospective study, the records of 34 patients who underwent Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy ESWL inBirat Medical College – Teaching Hospital over a period of one and a half years were reviewed to assess the outcome in terms of stone free rate and complication rate. Results: Mean age of the patients was 30.57±8.44 years and mean calculus size was 14.47±2.68 mm (range 10-20mm). The male and female ratio was 2:1. The success rate was higher for pelvic (83.33%) and upper calyceal (75%) and upper ureteric calculi (75%) compared to other calyces. Clinically significant residual fragment (CSRF) was the most common problem after ESWL (23.33%) at three months after the procedure. Conclusions: The outcome of ESWL as monotherapy for upper urinary tract calculi is acceptable in selected cases three months after the procedure. Keywords: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy; outcome; upper urinary tract calculi.


2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Lovegrove ◽  
M Spencer ◽  
B Turney ◽  
N Neal

Abstract Aim NICE guidance recommends patients with renal colic be offered surgical treatment, including extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), within 48 hours if pain is uncontrolled or stones unlikely to pass. We compared outcomes for ureteric stone passage after ESWL with those of observation to ascertain the relative benefits of ESWL. Method We collected data on stone location, size, and number of ESWL treatments required prospectively over 18 months. Stone passage was confirmed radiologically. Data were compared with MIMIC, a multi-centre collaborative study examining spontaneous stone passage after observation alone. Results 166 patients had ESWL for ureteric stones. Median size was 6.5mm (IQR 5.0-8.0mm). 57.2% (N = 95) were proximal stones. Smaller stones required fewer treatments (P = 0.003). Patients with a ureteric stone &lt;5mm required median 1.0 ESWL treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0). Ureteric stones 5-7mm had median 1.0 treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0) and stones &gt;7mm median 2.0 treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0). Compared to MIMIC, patients with ESWL for stones &lt;5mm were 11% more likely to achieve stone clearance (100.0% vs 89.0%, P = 0.001). ESWL for 5-7mm stones had 28.1% greater clearance compared to observation (77.1% vs. 49.0%, P &lt; 0.001) and ESWL for stones &gt;7mm 21% greater likelihood of clearance (50.0% vs. 29.0%, P &lt; 0.001). Proximal ureteric stones were 16.4% more likely to pass with ESWL than observation (68.4% vs 52%, P = 0.02). Distal stones showed similar passage with ESWL (77.5%) and observation (83.0%), P = 0.43. Conclusions Proximal ureteric stones and those &gt;5mm stones benefit most from ESWL. Results aid identification of patients whose stones are less likely to pass and warrant urgent review to consider ESWL.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document