scholarly journals Relative benefits of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) compared to observation in acute renal colic

Author(s):  
Catherine Lovegrove

Miss Catherine Lovegrove1,2Mandy Spencer1Prof Ben Turney1,2Ms Naomi Neal1 1 Department of Urology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK2 University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK   Background 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. Methods 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 <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 >7mm median 2.0 treatments (IQR 1.0-2.0). Compared to MIMIC, patients with ESWL for stones <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<0.001) and ESWL for stones >7mm 21% greater likelihood of clearance (50.0% vs. 29.0%, P<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 >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.

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.


1970 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-73
Author(s):  
Mohammad A H Aly Freeg ◽  
Anu V Ranade ◽  
Jayakumary Muttappallymyalil ◽  
Tarek F A Ghaffar

Urinary stone disease still persists as a major health care problem due to its high prevalence. The management of patients with ureteral stones still remains under debate in several areas. There are different therapeutic approaches for ureteral stones depending on stone size, location, anatomical variations of the urogenital tract and patient performance. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) being the main stay of treatment of choice for the stones, the management of large stone remains a point of discussion. With the latest advance in technology coupled with knowledge, there have been recent changes in therapeutic options for ureteric stones. Therefore, the treatment approaches may be individualized in order to achieve optimum outcomes. This article reports on a case of a large proximal ureteric stone with acute flank pain and hematuria managed by ESWL. Key words: Urinary stone; Ureteric stone; ESWL.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/nje.v1i2.5144 Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 2011;1 (2):70-73


2016 ◽  
Vol 195 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Umari ◽  
Stefano Bucci ◽  
Michele Rizzo ◽  
Nicola Pavan ◽  
Giovanni Liguori ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey Kravchick ◽  
Igor Bunkin ◽  
Eugeny Stepnov ◽  
Ronit Peled ◽  
Leonid Agulansky ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
Vol 171 (4S) ◽  
pp. 495-495
Author(s):  
Thomas Knoll ◽  
Yvonne Alfano ◽  
Stefan Kamp ◽  
Axel Haecker ◽  
Peter Aiken ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document