The New Lithotripsy Index predicts success of shock wave lithotripsy.
Predictive factor
SMLI
SWL
Treatment
Urolithiasis
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
02
08
2022
accepted:
01
11
2022
pubmed:
16
11
2022
medline:
3
12
2022
entrez:
15
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study is to evaluate the factors affecting treatment success in patients who underwent Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and to investigate the effect of the Storz Medical Lithotripsy Index (SMLI) on treatment effectiveness. Prospective data were collected on patients undergoing SWL treatment for kidney stones between January 2013 and May 2021. Stone location, number and size were determined with non-contrast CT (NCCT) for all patients. All patients underwent SWL with a Storz Modulith SLK lithotripsy machine without anaesthesia. The total amount of energy applied to the stone was calculated using the SMLI. All patients were evaluated for stone-free status by X-ray at least 2 weeks after treatment. The success of the procedure was defined as the patient being completely stone free or the detection of residual fragments < 4 mm that did not require further treatment. A total of 1230 patients with kidney stones were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 42.33 ± 11.78 (18-75), and the mean BMI was 28.47 ± 8.78 (19.25-38.52). During SWL, 75.6% of patients demonstrated excellent pain tolerance (930/1230). A total of 116 patients could not tolerate the pain during SWL (9.4%). Treatment success was associated with fewer treatment sessions (2.34 ± 1.75 vs. 2.90 ± 2.04; p < 0.001), smaller stone size (7.52 ± 3.29 vs 8.60 ± 3.93; p < 0.001) and higher SMLI/stone size (25.11 ± 13.63 vs. 22.27 ± 14.50; p < 0.001). In the univariate and multivariate regression analysis, the factors affecting the success of the treatment were the number of sessions (OR 1.170), stone size (OR 1.142), number of shocks (OR 1.005), SMLI/stone size (OR 1.024) and pain tolerance (OR 0.692). In the treatment of kidney stones with SWL, stone site, stone size, SMLI/stone size, and pain tolerance are the factors affecting success. SMLI per stone size is a statistically significant factor for predicting SWL success.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36380209
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04215-9
pii: 10.1007/s00345-022-04215-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3049-3053Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Jan H, Akbar I, Kamran H et al (2008) Frequency of renal stone disease in patients with urinary tract infection. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 20(1):60–62
pubmed: 19024188
Rule AD, Lieske JC, Li X et al (2014) The ROKS nomogram for predicting a second symptomatic stone episode. J Am Soc Nephrol 25(12):2878–2886
doi: 10.1681/ASN.2013091011
pubmed: 25104803
pmcid: 4243346
Andrabi Y, Patino M, Das CJ et al (2015) Advances in CT imaging for urolithiasis. Indian J Urol. 31(3):185–193
doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.156924
pubmed: 26166961
pmcid: 4495492
Snicorius M, Bakavicius A, Cekauskas A et al (2021) Factors influencing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy efficiency for optimal patient selection. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 16(2):409–416
pubmed: 34136039
pmcid: 8193744
Bajaj M, Smith R, Rice M et al (2021) Predictors of success following extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy in a contemporary cohort. Urol Ann. 13(3):282–287
doi: 10.4103/UA.UA_155_19
pubmed: 34421266
pmcid: 8343291
Chen X, Chen J, Zhou X et al (2022) Is there a place for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the endoscopic era? Urolithiasis 50(3):369–374
doi: 10.1007/s00240-022-01307-4
pubmed: 35122131
Nielsen TK, Jensen JB (2017) Efficacy of commercialised extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy service: a review of 589 renal stones. BMC Urol 17(1):59
doi: 10.1186/s12894-017-0249-8
pubmed: 28750620
pmcid: 5532761
Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT Jr et al (2005) Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology 66(5):941–944
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.011
pubmed: 16286099
Abe T, Akakura K, Kawaguchi M et al (2005) Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large-scale study at a single institution. J Endourol 19(7):768–773
doi: 10.1089/end.2005.19.768
pubmed: 16190825
Wagenius M, Oddason K, Utter M et al (2022) Factors influencing stone-free rate of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL); a cohort study. Scand J Urol 56(3):237–243
doi: 10.1080/21681805.2022.2055137
pubmed: 35400281
Fankhauser CD, Hermanns T, Lieger L et al (2018) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of untreated renal calculi. Clin Kidney J 11(3):364–369
doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfx151
pubmed: 29992018
pmcid: 6007408
Akinci A, Akpinar C, Babayigit M et al (2022) Predicting ESWL success by determination of Hounsfield unit on non-contrast CT is clinically irrelevant in children. Urolithiasis 50(2):223–228
doi: 10.1007/s00240-022-01306-5
pubmed: 35072732
Iqbal N, Malik Y, Nadeem U et al (2018) Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: a single center experience. Turk J Urol 44(3):221–227
doi: 10.5152/tud.2018.41848
pubmed: 29733796
pmcid: 5937642
Ullah A, Zubair M, Khan N et al (2015) Frequency and factors effecting non clearance of lower pole renal stones. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 27(2):384–387
pubmed: 26411123
Cui H, Thomee E, Noble JG et al (2013) Efficacy of the lithotripsy in treating lower pole renal stones. Urolithiasis 41(3):231–234
doi: 10.1007/s00240-013-0549-8
pubmed: 23456210
Zheng Z, Xu J, Peng L et al (2022) Predict success of shock wave lithotripsy was still interesting and challenging. World J Urol 40(5):1261–1262
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03758-7
pubmed: 34136946
Waqas M, Saqib IU, Imran Jamil M et al (2018) Evaluating the importance of different computed tomography scan-based factors in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones. Investig Clin Urol 59(1):25–31
doi: 10.4111/icu.2018.59.1.25
pubmed: 29333511
Massoud AM, Abdelbary AM, Al-Dessoukey AA et al (2014) The success of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy based on the stone-attenuation value from non-contrast computed tomography. Arab J Urol 12(2):155–161
doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2014.01.002
pubmed: 26019941
pmcid: 4434685
Chung VY, Turney BW (2016) The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10–20 mm) renal stones. Urolithiasis 44(5):441–444
doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0857-2
pubmed: 26743071
Kang DH, Cho KS, Ham WS et al (2016) Comparison of high, intermediate, and low frequency shock wave lithotripsy for urinary tract stone disease: systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 11(7):e0158661
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158661
pubmed: 27387279
pmcid: 4936716
Ouzaid I, Al-qahtani S, Dominique S et al (2012) A 970 Hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients’ selection for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from a prospective study. BJU Int 110(11 Pt B):E438–E442
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10964.x
pubmed: 22372937
Bandi G, Meiners RJ, Pickhardt PJ et al (2009) Stone measurement by volumetric three-dimensional computed tomography for predicting the outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. BJU Int 103(4):524–528
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08069.x
pubmed: 19007365
El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O et al (2007) A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomography. Eur Urol. 51(6):1688–1693 (discussion 1693–4)
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.048
pubmed: 17161522
He Z, Deng T, Yin S et al (2020) Energy output modalities of shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of urinary stones: escalating or fixed voltage? A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 38(10):2443–2453
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-03049-2
pubmed: 31813025
Suzuki K, Yamashita Y, Yoshida M et al (2010) A single center experience with a lithotripsy machine “Modulith SLX-F2” : evaluation of dual focus system and clinical results. Hinyokika Kiyo 56(2):81–86
pubmed: 20185991