Shockwave Lithotripsy for De-Novo Urolithiasis after Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
SWL
allograft
de-novo urolithiasis
renal transplant
shockwave
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jun 2023
29 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
11
05
2023
revised:
27
06
2023
accepted:
28
06
2023
medline:
14
7
2023
pubmed:
14
7
2023
entrez:
14
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Allograft urolithiasis is an uncommon, challenging, and potentially dangerous clinical problem. Treatment of allograft stones includes external shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), flexible ureteroscopy and lasertripsy (fURSL), or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). A gap in the literature and guidelines exists regarding the treatment of patients in this setting. The aim of this systematic review was to collect preoperative and treatment characteristics and evaluate the outcomes of post-transplant SWL for stone disease. A systematic search in the literature was performed, including articles up to March 2023. Only original English articles were selected. Eight articles (81 patients) were included in the review. Patients were mainly male, with a mean age of 41.9 years (±7.07). The mean stone size was 13.18 mm (±2.28 mm). Stones were predominantly located in the kidney ( SWL is a safe and effective option to treat de novo stones after transplantation. Larger studies are needed to better address allograft urolithiasis management.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Allograft urolithiasis is an uncommon, challenging, and potentially dangerous clinical problem. Treatment of allograft stones includes external shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), flexible ureteroscopy and lasertripsy (fURSL), or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). A gap in the literature and guidelines exists regarding the treatment of patients in this setting. The aim of this systematic review was to collect preoperative and treatment characteristics and evaluate the outcomes of post-transplant SWL for stone disease.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic search in the literature was performed, including articles up to March 2023. Only original English articles were selected.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eight articles (81 patients) were included in the review. Patients were mainly male, with a mean age of 41.9 years (±7.07). The mean stone size was 13.18 mm (±2.28 mm). Stones were predominantly located in the kidney (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
SWL is a safe and effective option to treat de novo stones after transplantation. Larger studies are needed to better address allograft urolithiasis management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37445423
pii: jcm12134389
doi: 10.3390/jcm12134389
pmc: PMC10342763
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
Eur Urol Focus. 2023 May;9(3):491-499
pubmed: 36567234
J Endourol. 2021 Dec;35(12):1863-1882
pubmed: 33878937
Br J Radiol. 2005 Jun;78(930):506-11
pubmed: 15900055
Eur Urol Focus. 2023 Jan;9(1):199-208
pubmed: 35927160
Arch Esp Urol. 2014 Sep;67(7):650-3
pubmed: 25241841
Indian J Urol. 2014 Apr;30(2):137-43
pubmed: 24744508
Can J Urol. 2015 Apr;22(2):7727-31
pubmed: 25891337
J Endourol. 2012 Jan;26(1):38-44
pubmed: 22050494
J Endourol. 2009 Nov;23(11):1821-4
pubmed: 19814697
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Urology. 2018 Aug;118:43-46
pubmed: 29753848
Indian J Urol. 2015 Jul-Sep;31(3):185-93
pubmed: 26166961
BJU Int. 2004 Feb;93(3):364-8
pubmed: 14764139
BJU Int. 2005 May;95(7):931-3
pubmed: 15839905
BMC Nephrol. 2020 Jun 23;21(1):238
pubmed: 32576135
Transplant Proc. 2012 Oct;44(8):2373-5
pubmed: 23026596
J Urol. 2008 Mar;179(3):832-6
pubmed: 18221961
World J Urol. 2018 Jan;36(1):105-109
pubmed: 29058024
J Urol. 2008 Dec;180(6):2545-9
pubmed: 18930500
Chin Med J (Engl). 2011 May;124(9):1431-4
pubmed: 21740759
World J Urol. 2015 Dec;33(12):2079-85
pubmed: 25833662
J Urol. 2012 May;187(5):1651-5
pubmed: 22425102
Korean J Intern Med. 2001 Jun;16(2):118-22
pubmed: 11590898
Transplant Proc. 2011 Jun;43(5):2110-2
pubmed: 21693338
Urol J. 2021 May 08;18(3):252-258
pubmed: 33963530
Transplant Proc. 2015 Jul-Aug;47(6):1766-71
pubmed: 26293048
Prog Urol. 2023 Feb;33(2):88-95
pubmed: 36585296
BJU Int. 2007 Jun;99(6):1467-71
pubmed: 17309551
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016 Dec 30;88(4):337-340
pubmed: 28073208
Urology. 2021 Feb;148:26-31
pubmed: 32991909
World J Transplant. 2016 Dec 24;6(4):790-797
pubmed: 28058231
Urolithiasis. 2019 Jun;47(3):273-278
pubmed: 29484468
Exp Clin Transplant. 2014 Jun;12(3):200-4
pubmed: 24907719
BJU Int. 2005 Aug;96(3):385-9
pubmed: 16042735
Transplantation. 1988 May;45(5):899-902
pubmed: 3285534
J Endourol. 2021 Oct;35(10):1443-1447
pubmed: 33691495
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2018 Dec;70(6):606-611
pubmed: 30230298
Curr Opin Urol. 2019 Sep;29(5):548-555
pubmed: 30855381
Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2015;6(3):114-8
pubmed: 26306157
Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Mar;4(2):169-174
pubmed: 29941388
Urology. 2002 Jan;59(1):25-7
pubmed: 11796274
Int J Surg. 2016 Dec;36(Pt D):693-697
pubmed: 27856353
Urology. 2002 Mar;59(3):344-8
pubmed: 11880067
Exp Clin Transplant. 2017 Jun;15(3):277-281
pubmed: 28587588
Urology. 1978 Oct;12(4):402-6
pubmed: 362669
J Urol. 2010 Nov;184(5):2043-8
pubmed: 20850818