Shock-wave lithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 1–2 cm renal stones: A randomised pilot study

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 413-418
Author(s):  
Philip J McCahy ◽  
Matthew Hong ◽  
Eldho Paul ◽  
Ivor Berman ◽  
Shekib Shahbaz

Objectives: This study aimed to assess which of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL), ureterorenoscopy (URS) or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) offers the best stone-free rate (SFR) for 1–2 cm renal stones. Patients and methods: A total of 31 patients with renal stones between 1 and 2 cm were randomised to SWL, URS or PCNL. Repeat treatments or alternatives were performed until the patient was stone free or clinically in no further need of treatment. All patients were assessed with computed tomography scanning independently reviewed by a radiologist blinded to the treatment. Results: Overall, 10 well-matched patients were randomised to SWL, 11 to URS and 10 to PCNL. SFRs were 60% for SWL, 55% for URS and 80% for PCNL (no significant difference). The mean number of procedures required were 2.6 (range 1–7) for SWL, 2.5 (range 1–4) for URS and 1.3 (range 1–3) for PCNL ( p=0.072). There were no major complications, but 50% of SWL had minor complications compared with 9% for URS and 20% for PCNL. Conclusion: The results for SWL were disappointing for SFR, number of procedures and complications. In common with other recent studies, the SFR following URS was also poor. PCNL had the best results for SFR with the fewest procedures. We calculate that an adequately powered study will require 42 patients per arm. Level of evidence Level 2b

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-104
Author(s):  
Muhammad Mahmud Alam ◽  
Mohammad Rezaul Karim ◽  
Mohammad Ohiduzzaman Khan ◽  
Mohammad Mukhlesur Rahman ◽  
Mahfuja Asma ◽  
...  

Background: Stones in the urinary tract is a common medical problem in the general population. At present, the great expansion in minimally invasive techniques has led to the decrease in open surgery. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been introduced as an alternative approach which disintegrates stones in the kidney and upper urinary tract through the use of shock waves. Nevertheless, as there are limitations with the success rate in ESWL, other minimally invasive modalities for kidney stones such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is also widely applied. There is a trend of using ESWL for treatment of renal stones smaller than 1 cm and PCNL in those with stones greater than 2 cm. Nevertheless, no consensus regarding treatment of renal stones between 1 to 2 cm stones. The objective of this prospective study was to compare the results of ESWL and PCNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm renal stones. Method : This is a quasi experimental study. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in treating 10 to 20 mm sized renal stone among the Bangladeshi population. This prospective study conducted between the periods of September, 2011 to August, 2012 in the department of urology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib medical university (BSMMU) Hospital. All the patients attending the urology outpatient clinic with 10 to 20mm renal calculi were the study population. A total of 70 subjects were enrolled for this study and they were equally divided into two groups so that each group had 35 subjects. The one group received PCNL whereas the other group received ESWL. Statistical analyses of the results were obtained by using window based computer software devised with Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS-15). Results: There is no statistically significant difference in regarding age, sex, stone side(lt. or rt.), the distribution of stone (upper, middle and lower calyx) and size between the groups (p>0.05). At 3 month follow up among the patients in ESWL group stone cleared and not cleared were 25(71.4%) and 10(28.6%) respectively and at 3 month follow up among the patients in PCNL group stone cleared and not cleared were 33(94.3%) and 2(5.7%)respectively. There is statistically significant difference in stone clearance rate at 3 month follow up between the groups (p<0.05). All patients in ESWL group developed post procedure haematuria 35(100.0%). Other post procedure complications among the ESWL group pain, fever and steinstrasse were 12(34.3%), 07(20.0%) and 03(08.6%) respectively. Common post procedure complications among the patients of PCNL group pain, haematuria and fever were 11(31.4%), 33(94.3%) and 13(37.1%) respectively. Other post procedure complications in PCNL group were vomiting (8.6%), urinary leakage (5.7%), wound infection (11.4%) and urinary cutaneous fistula (5.7%). There was no statistically significant difference post procedure pain, haematuria and fever between the groups (p>0.05), but statistically significant difference observed in steinstrasse and wound infection between the groups (p<0.05). Mean±SD of hospital stay among the patients of ESWL group and PCNL group was 1.37±0.65 and 4.34±1.43 days respectively. There is statistically significant difference in hospital stay between the groups (p<0.05). Conclusion: Though some specific complications which can be treated conservatively are more in PCNL group it may be concluded that the treatment with PCNL is better option than ESWL among the patients having renal calculi 10 to 20 mm. Bangladesh Journal of Urology, Vol. 21, No. 2, July 2018 p.98-104


Medicina ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Chan Hee Kim ◽  
Doo Yong Chung ◽  
Koon Ho Rha ◽  
Joo Yong Lee ◽  
Seon Heui Lee

Background and objectives: To perform a updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stones (RS). Materials and Methods: A total of 37 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis about effectiveness to treat RS. Endpoints were stone-free rates (SFR), incidence of auxiliary procedure, retreatment, and complications. We also conducted a sub-analysis of ≥2 cm stones. Results: First, PCNL had the highest SFR than others regardless of stone sizes and RIRS showed a higher SFR than ESWL in <2 cm stones. Second, auxiliary procedures were higher in ESWL than others, and it did not differ between PCNL and RIRS. Finally, in <2 cm stones, the retreatment rate of ESWL was higher than others. RIRS required significantly more retreatment procedures than PCNL in ≥2 cm stones. Complication was higher in PCNL than others, but there was no statistically significant difference in complications between RIRS and PCNL in ≥2 cm stones. For ≥2 cm stones, PCNL had the highest SFR, and auxiliary procedures and retreatment rates were significantly lower than others. Conclusions: We suggest that PCNL is a safe and effective treatment, especially for large RS.


QJM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A S Hegazy ◽  
M I Ahmed ◽  
A F M Abdelgawad

Abstract Background Urinary stone disease or nephrolithiasis, the third most common disease of the urinary tract is a major health problem due to its high prevalence, incidence and recurrence. The lifetime incidence of kidney stones for men and women is approximately 13% and 7% respectively. Although stones may be asymptomatic, potential consequences include abdominal and flank pain, nausea and vomiting, urinary tract obstruction, infection, and procedure-related morbidity. Ureteral stones frequently cause renal colic and if left untreated can cause obstructive uropathy. Objectives A prospective randomized study to compare between extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and rigid ureteroscopy in mid-ureteric stone treatment regarding efficacy, stone-free rate, retreatment rates, associated complications (intra-operative and post-operative), operative duration, hospital stay. Patients and Methods This study was performed at Ain Shams University (Urology department) and El Doaah hospital (Urology department), From August 2016 to August 2017, a total of 50 patients having solitary radiopaque middle ureteral stone ranges between 0.5 – 1.5 in size were divided into two groups 25 patients each enrolled in our prospective study. Results In this study the overall stone free rate was considered after two sessions of ESWL (in case of ESWL group) or one trial of ureteroscopy (in case of URS group). ESWL group: 14 cases became stone free after the first session, while the remaining 11 out of 25 patients needed second session, 6 cases became stone free after the second session. ESWL failure occurred in 5 cases and they were successfully managed by ureteroscopy. URS group: 23 cases became stone free after first ureteroscopy, while the remaining 2 patients needed second ureteroscopy due to proximal migration of the stone. In ESWL group, patients were already at outpatient clinic so there were no admission or hospital stay, all cases done without anesthesia, just analgesic ± sedation. While in URS group patients admitted and the hospital stay varies from one day to seven days according to the condition of the case, all URS cases had Spinal anesthesia. ESWL was shown to be less time consuming than URS with a mean operative time of 46.84±3.61 minutes versus 56.20±7.11 minutes respectively. In URS group there were 22 patients had ureteric catheter inserted for 24 to 72 hours postoperatively and 3 patients had double (J) stent inserted for 4 weeks postoperatively, while all the patients who underwent ESWL, no auxiliary procedure done as this procedure is completely non-invasive. Among ESWL cases, No case had an intra-operative complication, while URS group had 3 cases of intra-operative complication. There were 4 cases who had post-operative complications among ESWL group, while there were 5 cases who had post-operative complications among URS group. Conclusion In treatment of mid-ureteral stones range 0.5-1.5 in size, both URS and ESWL modalities are comparable but URS is recommended as a first option as it is more effective than ESWL regarding stone free rate and it provides immediate stone clearance with lower re-treatment rates and higher patient satisfaction, but URS requires anesthesia, longer hospitalization, and associated with a higher incidence of complications.


2015 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Basri Cakiroglu ◽  
Orhun Sinanoglu ◽  
Tuncay Tas ◽  
Ismet Aydin Hazar ◽  
Mustafa Bahadir Can Balci

Objective: To compare the outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) combined with inclined position and SWL alone in patients with lower pole calyx stones. Methods: Seven hundred forty patients who underwent SWL treatment for lower pole renal stones with a total diameter of 2 cm or less were prospectively randomized into two groups. They were comparable in terms of age, sex, and stone diameters. Patients with lower calyceal stones (4-20 mm) were randomized to SWL (368 patients) or SWL with simultaneous inclination (372 patients) with 30o head down Trendelenburg position). Shock wave and session numbers were standardized according to stone size. Additional standardized shock waves were given to patients with stone fragments determined by kidney urinary bladder film and ultrasound at weeks 1, 4, 10. Results: The overall stone free rate (SFR) was 73% (268/368) in patients with SWL alone and 81% (300/372) in SWL with inclination at the end of 12th week (p = 0.015). No significant adverse events were noted in both treatment groups. Conclusion: Simultaneous inclination of patients during SWL session increase SFR in lower caliceal stones significantly compared to SWL treatment alone.


2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHARALAMBOS DELIVELIOTIS ◽  
VASILIOS ARGIROPOULOS ◽  
JOHN VARKARAKIS ◽  
STEFANOS ALBANIS ◽  
ANDREAS SKOLARIKOS

2009 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanos Albanis ◽  
Hammad M. Ather ◽  
Athanasios G. Papatsoris ◽  
Junaid Masood ◽  
Dimitrios Staios ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 906 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed R. EL-Nahas ◽  
Ahmed A Shokeir ◽  
Ahmed M Shoma ◽  
Ibrahim Eraky ◽  
Osama M Sarhan ◽  
...  

Introduction: We compare percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and open surgery in the treatment of staghorn stones in children.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic records of children who underwent treatment for staghorn stones between September 2000 and August 2013. They were divided between Group 1 (patients who underwent PCNL) and Group 2 (patients who underwent open surgery). We compared stone-free and complications rates, need for multiple procedures, and hospital stay.Results: The study included 41 patients (35 boys and 6 girls), with mean age 7.4 ± 3.1 years (range: 2–15). Of these 41 patients, 26 had unilateral renal stone and 15 had bilateral renal stones. The total number of treated renal units was 56: 28 underwent PCNL and 28 underwent open surgery. The complication rate was comparable for both groups (32% for open surgery vs. 28.6%, p = 0.771). Multiple procedures were more needed in PCNL group (60.7% vs. 32% in open surgery, p = 0.032). The stone-free rate was 71.4% after PCNL and 78.6% after open surgery (p = 0.537). A significant difference was observed in shorter hospital stay after PCNL (5 vs. 8.8 days, p < 0.001). Our study’s limitations include its retrospective design and relatively small sample size.Conclusions: For the treatment of staghorn stones in children, PCNL was comparable to open surgery in complication and stone-free rates. PCNL had the advantage of a shorter hospital stay and open surgery showed a decreased need for multiple procedures. 


2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Omar Rusydi ◽  
Djoko Rahardjo

Objective: To evaluate the management of ureterolithiasis using Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) EDAP Sonolith Technomed compared to ureteroscopy (URS) with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy. Material & Method: Research was conducted at Central Pertamina Hospital Jakarta by comparative analysis. The data was taken from patients’ medical records diagnosed with ureterolithiasis who had been treated from January to Desember 2009.Results: Central Hospital Pertamina Jakarta had treated 127 patients with urolithiasis from January to December 2009. Most frequent therapeutic modality was URS, which was followed by ESWL.Double J stents were used in 19,8% of the treatmentin combination with URS, more common than ESWL. Stone free rate in urolithiasis was not significantly different between treatment with URS and ESWL, although stone free rate of URS was higher than ESWL.Use of DJ stent didn’t affect stone free rate of urolithiasis from two of these modalities.Conclusion: Stone free rate of these modalities was below of stone free rate at literatures published, because evaluation from stone free rate of this research was taken after the treatment or 1-2 days after the treatment with imaging of KUB and USG.Keywords: Urolithiasis, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureteroscopic,DJ stent, stone free rate.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document