ABSTRACT

Aim:

To analyze the effect of double-J stent placement on shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) success in the treatment of relatively large (15-25 mm) upper and middle calyceal stones.

Methods:

A total of 167 patients who had 15-25 mm opaque upper or middle calyceal stones and scheduled for SWL were included in the study. Patients with solitary kidney, urinary system anomalies, skeletal anomalies, previous urologic surgery, severe calyceal dilatation, untreated urinary tract infection, bleeding disorder, eGFR<60 and suspected pregnancy were excluded from the study. The remaining 148 patients were randomized into two groups as stented and non-stented. Thirty-one patients whose stones could not be fragmantated despite three sessions were also excluded. A total of 117 patients (30 stented and 87 non-stented) were further analyzed. The groups were compared in terms of patient- and stone-related factors.

Results:

Eighty-nine (76%) patients were male and 28 (24%) were female. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, stone side, stone size, skin-to-stone distance, Hounsfield unit and renal parenchymal thickness. The success rate was 70% and 51.7% in the stented and non-stented groups, respectively (p=0.31).

Conclusion:

Prestenting does not affect the success of SWL in the treatment of 15-25 mm upper and middle calyceal stones.

References

1Massoud AM, Abdelbary AM, Al-Dessoukey AA, Moussa AS, Zayed AS, Mahmmoud O. The success of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy based on the stone-attenuation value from non-contrast computed tomography. Arab J Urol 2014;12:155-61.

2GyanPareek, Noel A. Armenakas, Georgia Panagopoulos, John J. Bruno, John A. Fracchia. Extracorporeal shoch wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield units. J Urology 2005;65:33-6.

3Park BH, Choi H, Kim JB, Chang YS. Analyzing the effect of distance from skin to stone by computed tomography scan on the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy stone-free rate of renal stones. Korean J Urol 2012;53:40-3.

4Bon D, Dore B, Irani J, Marroncle M, Aubert J. Radiographic prognostic criteria for extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: a study of 485 patients. Urology 1996;48:556-61.

5Kirkali Z, Esen AA, Akan G. Place of double-J stents in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 1993;23:460-2.

6Bierkens AF, Hendrik AJ, Lemmens WA, Debruyne FM. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for large renal calculi: the role of ureteral stents. A randomized trial. J Urol 1991;145:699-702.

7Kato Y, Yamaguchi S, Hori J, Okuyama M, Kaneko S, Yachiku S. Utility of ureteral stent for stone street after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Hinyokika Kiyo 2005;51:309-14.

8Damiano R, Oliva R, Esposito C, De Sio M, Autorino R, D’Armiento M. Early and late complications of double pigtail ureteral stent. Urol Int 2002;69:136-40.

9Ghoneim IA, El-Ghoneimy MN, El-Naggar AE, Hammoud KM, El-Gammal MY, Morsi AA. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in impacted upper ureteral stones: a prospective randomized comparison between stented and non-stented techniques. Urology 2010;75:45.

10Türk C, Petrík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A. Straub M. EAU Guidelines on Diagnosis and Conservative Management of Urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016;69:468-74.

11Egilmez T, Tekin MI, Gonen M, Kilinc F, Goren R, Ozkardes H. Efficacy and safety of a new-generation shockwave lithotripsy machine in the treatment of single renal or ureteral stones: experience with 2670 patients. J Endourol 2007;21:23-7.

12El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Sheir KZ. Is pre-shock wave lithotripsy stenting necessary for ureteral stones with moderate or severe hydronephrosis? J Urol 2006;176:2059-62.

13Low RK, Stoller ML, Irby P, Keeler L, Elhilali M. Outcome assessment of doubleJ stents during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of small solitary renal calculi. J Endurol 1996;10:341-3.

14Kirkali Z, Esen AA, Akan G. Place of double-J stents in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 1993;23:460-2.

15Shen P, Jiang M, Yang J, et al. Use of stent in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for upper urinary calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 2011;186:1328-35.

16Elbahansy A, Shalhav A, Hoenig D, et al. Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Urol 1998;159:676-82.

17Sampaio F, Aragao A. Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1992;147:322-4.

Effect of Double-J Stent Placement on Shock Wave Lithotripsy Success in the Treatment of 15-25 mm Renal Upper and Middle Calyceal Stones

ABSTRACT

References