Stone clearance after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with solitary pure calcium oxalate stones smaller than 1.0 cm in the proximal ureter, with special reference to monohydrate and dihydrate content

2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-139
Author(s):  
Osamu Ichiyanagi ◽  
Akira Nagaoka ◽  
Takuji Izumi ◽  
Yuko Kawamura ◽  
Masaaki Tsukigi ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
V. L. Medvedev ◽  
A. A. Budanov ◽  
G. D. Dmitrenko ◽  
G. A. Palaguta ◽  
A. M. Rozenkranc

Objective To evaluate the results of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of calcium oxalate nephrolithiasis, as well as the damaging effects on renal function, taking into account the dynamics of blood cystatin C and urine beta2-microglobulin.Material and Methods Of 94 patients with calcium oxalate nephrolithiasis aged 23–78 included in the study,  42 patients were classified as having undergone ESWL (group I) and 52 patients as having undergone RIRS (group II). Group II patients were then stratified into subset 2A (n = 32) as having undergone RIRS through rigid ureteroscope and subset 2B (n = 20) as having undergone RIRS through flexible ureteroscope. We performed plain urography and nephrosonography at 24–48 hours postoperatively and unenhanced computed tomography 4–6 weeks after surgery. We measured concentrations of serum cystatin C and urinary beta2-microglobulin as a marker for kidney damage. In group I, samples of peripheral blood andurine were taken before and after the first, third sessions and 30 days after the last ESWL session. In group  II, samples were analyzed before surgery, on the first and 30th postoperative days.Results The average size of calculi in the group with RIRS was 16.91 ± 2.79 mm, in the group with ESWL  12.31 ± 2.27 mm. The need for reoperation after RIRS was 19.2%, which was lower than after ESWL. Stone-free effect (no stones, or residual stones less than 3 mm) was observed in 95% of cases in patients with RIRS, and in 78% with ESWL. Group I patients demonstrated an increase in the blood leukocytes total number more often than subsets 2A (rigid RIRS) and 2B (flexible RIRS) patients. Leukocyturia was also a more common complication in group I. In the RIRS group, there was no statistically significant change in the level of blood cystatin C and urine beta2-microglobulin, on the contrary, a moderate increase in the endogenous marker of cystatin C was noted after one ESWL session. The increase in urine beta2-microglobulin levels in patients after the first and third ESWL sessions was significantly higher than after RIRS.Conclusion Flexible RIRS may be suggested as the preferred procedure for patients requiring additional protection of renal function in the treatment of renal stones less than 20 mm. ESWL of stones less than 20 mm can be used as an alternative treatment, since it is characterized by a rather long period of stone eradication from the urinary tract, a high frequency of residual calculi after the procedure, and also has a damaging effect on the renal tissue.


Author(s):  
Rahul Jain ◽  
Karthikeyan Raju ◽  
Rajandeep Singh Bali ◽  
Jagdish Chander ◽  
Sushanto Neogi

Background: Most patients with uncomplicated kidney stones can be successfully treated with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). Double-J ureteral stent is used to facilitate stone clearance, however double-J ureteral stents themselves may cause complications. Study conducted the study to know the exact role of double J stent in ESWL.Methods: 80 patients undergoing ESWL were divided into two groups, group A (n=40) double J stenting and group B (n=40) without double J stenting. Both groups were compared for stone fragmentation, stone clearance, number of shockwaves required for fragmentation, time required for passing through ureter, steinstrasse, Urinary Tract Infection.Results: Both the groups were comparable for age, sex, stone size and stone location distribution. There was no significant difference in clearance of stone and no. of shockwaves received for clearance in both the groups. The overall incidence of steinstrasse between the two groups was insignificant with a p value of 0.644. The incidence of UTI was significantly higher in stented group (p value 0.032).Conclusions: Study recommend ESWL without double J stent in patients having solitary renal calculus of size < 2 cm. Double J stent predisposes the patient to multiple complications including urinary tract infection which increases the morbidity of the patient. Based on our study we conclude that double J stenting in patients of renal calculus of size < 2cm, prior to ESWL is not beneficial.


1969 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 658-662
Author(s):  
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD IRSHAD KHALIL ◽  
IAZ AHMAD KHAN ◽  
SIDDIQUE ADNAN

BACKGROUND: The overall probability that an individual will form stones varies in different regionsof the world. The risk of having urinary tract stones in the developed country populations is between 10-15%. The prevalence of urinary tract stone disease is 13% for adult males and 7% among the females.Most of the patients with ureteric stones present with colicky pain, however some may be asymptomaticand are identified on routine assessment. Large stones typically require active treatment. Stones that donot pass can be removed by different treatment modalities such as Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy(ESWL), Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and open or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of Ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shockwavelithotripsy in the treatment of proximal ureteric stones of size between 10mm to 15mm.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized control trial of 138 human subjects,conducted at Department of Urology, Institute of Kidney Diseases, Hayatabad Medical Complex,Peshawar. Total sample size was based on the previously reported stone clearance rates for proximalureteric stones (88% URSL12 and 67.5% for ESWL11), 95% confidence interval and power of 90%.RESULTS: In this study mean age was 47.36 years SD +15.4. Fifty nine percent patients were male and41% patients were female. Eighteen percent patients had stone size 10mm, 19.6% patients had stone size11mm, 19.6% patients had stone size 12mm, 16.7% patients had stone size 13mm, 13.6 patients hadstone size 14mm, 11.6% patients had stone size 15mm. ESWL was effective in 65.2% and was notsuccessful in 34.8%, while in the URSL group 84.1% were treated successfully and in 15.9% patientswith proximal ureteric stones the stone clearance efficacy was not effective.CONCLUSION: Both URSL & ESWL are well accepted minimally invasive modalities of treatmentfor proximal ureteric stones. We conclude that URSL has yielded superior results as compared to theESWL group in treatment of patients with proximal ureteric stones of size 1-1.5cm.KEY WORDS: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, proximal ureteric stones.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document