Efficacy of glucagon in the relief of ureteral colic following treatment by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a randomized double-blind trial

In a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study 18 patients were evaluated in regard to the effectiveness of glucagon to treat ureteral colic following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. The study groups were comparable. There was no significant difference between glucagon and placebo in relief of pain or in the amount of gravel passed within 48 hours of treatment. We conclude that despite its desirable physiological attributes, glucagon has no demonstrable benefit in the treatment of ureteral colic following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.     

Use of indomethacin in the prophylaxis of ureteral colic following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Ureteral obstruction leading to pain seems to be related to an increase of renal prostaglandins (PG). We designed a prospective double-blind, placebo controlled protocol for evaluating the effect of indomethacin, a PG-synthetase inhibitor, in the prophylaxis of ureteral colic following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Sixty patients undergoing ESWL were randomized into two groups, group 1 (study group) received 50 mg indomethacin capsule three times daily and group 2 (control group) received multiple-vitamin tablet three times daily. Twenty-four hours urine samples were collected before and three days after ESWL was performed for PGE2 (predominant renal PG) determination. Subjective pain after ESWL was recorded with pain score (0-10 degrees). Oral codein or pethidine injection were available for relieving pain following ESWL. The pain score, analgesic requirement and urinary PGE2 in pre- and post-ESWL were used to compare the two groups. The pain score was 4.00 +/- 0.25 and 3.00 +/- 0.25 in the control and study groups respectively; it had a statistically significant difference (p < 0.01). In control group, 12 and 14 patients required 23 doses of codein and 18 doses of pethidine. In the study group, three and four patients required five doses of codein and eight doses of pethidine. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). In the control group, the mean pre- and post-ESWL urinary PGE2 was 305 +/- 65.8 and 474 +/- 101 micrograms/24-hr respectively. In the study group, the mean pre- and post-ESWL urinary PGE2 was 289 +/- 60.7 and 186 +/- 26.5 micrograms/24-hr respectively.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

超声引导椎旁联合骶管阻滞在预防体外碎石术肾绞痛中的应用

目的研究超声引导椎旁联合骶管阻滞在预防输尿管结石体外碎石术肾绞痛中的应用。方法回顾性分析本院2018年6月至2019年1月因输尿管结石行体外冲击波碎石患者100例。观察组为超声引导椎旁联合骶管阻滞后体外碎石患者53例;对照组为直接进行体外碎石患者47例。收集所有纳入研究的患者的性别、年龄、结石大小、肾绞痛、血尿、感染、治疗中断、结石清除率等资料进行分析。结果两组患者在年龄、结石大小、性别比例、治疗后1个月结石清除率上差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),观察组1周结石清除率稍高于对照组,但差异无统计学意义。在肾绞痛及其他并发症方面,观察组术中无肾绞痛发生(对照组7例,P=0.004)。术后观察组10例患者、对照组14例患者发生肾绞痛。两组术后一过性肉眼血尿、低热、眩晕、恶心呕吐、胸闷发生率差异均无统计学意义。结论椎旁阻滞联合骶管内麻醉预防ESWL中肾绞痛的发生。     

Ureteral stone manipulation before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

We randomized 75 patients with solitary ureteral calculi that could not be dislodged by ureteral catheterization to receive instillation of saline, 2 per cent lidocaine viscous solution or dilute surgical lubricant before repeat stone manipulation with ureteral catheters. Of the stones irrigated with saline 76 per cent were returned to the pelvis along with 60 per cent of the lidocaine group and 48 per cent of the surgical lubricant treated stones. There was no statistical significance among the 3 groups. The success rates for upper, mid and lower ureteral stones were 80, 54 and 30 per cent, respectively. Of stones 0.5 cm. or less and between 0.6 and 1.0 cm. 77 and 72 per cent, respectively, were manipulated successfully but only 38 per cent of the stones larger than 1.0 cm. could be dislodged. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was successful in treating pelvic and ureteral stones, although higher kilovolt settings and additional shocks were necessary to fragment the ureteral stones completely. Percutaneous nephrostomy or ureteral meatotomy was required in 10 per cent of the patients with impacted ureteral stones following in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy but in only 4 per cent of the patients with stones successfully returned to the pelvis. Of the ureteral stones 17 per cent were treated with repeat extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. No patient with pelvic stones required repeat treatment. Retrograde manipulation of ureteral stones is an effective adjunctive procedure before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.     

Is there a role for tamsulosin in shock wave lithotripsy for renal and ureteral calculi?

PURPOSE: We evaluated the effect of the alpha-blocker tamsulosin on stone clearance, analgesic requirements and steinstrasse in shock wave lithotripsy for solitary renal and ureteral calculus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, double-blind, randomized placebo controlled study was performed during 1 year involving 60 patients with a solitary renal or ureteral calculus undergoing shock wave lithotripsy. The control group (30) received 0.4 mg tamsulosin and the study group (30) received placebo daily until stone clearance or for a maximum of 30 days. An oral preparation of dextropropoxyphene hydrochloride and acetaminophen was the analgesic used on an on-demand basis. The parameters assessed were stone size, position, clearance time, effect on steinstrasse and analgesic requirement. RESULTS: The overall clearance rate was 96.6% (28 of 29) in the study group and 79.3% (23 of 29) in the control group (p = 0.04). With larger stones 11 to 24 mm the difference in the clearance rate was significant (p = 0.03) but not so with the smaller stones 6 to 10 mm (p = 0.35). The average dose of analgesic used was lower with tamsulosin than with controls, without statistical significance. Steinstrasse resolved spontaneously in the tamsulosin group whereas 25% (2 of 8) required intervention in the placebo group. There was no difference between the 2 groups with regard to age, stone size or location. CONCLUSIONS: The alpha-blocker tamsulosin seemed to facilitate stone clearance, particularly with larger stones during shock wave lithotripsy for renal and ureteral calculus. It also appeared to improve the outcome of steinstrasse. Tamsulosin may have a potential role in routine shock wave lithotripsy.     

A modified algorithm for the management of ureteral calculi: 100 consecutive cases

We treated 100 consecutive ureteral calculi requiring intervention with a previously described algorithm. There were 16 ureteropelvic junction, and 18 upper, 22 mid and 44 lower ureteral calculi. Treatment was by a stent and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 10 ureteropelvic junction, 10 upper ureteral and 3 mid ureteral calculi, ureteroscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 6 upper and 6 mid ureteral calculi, and ureteroscopy alone in 5 ureteropelvic junction, 2 upper and 12 mid ureteral calculi. All 44 lower ureteral calculi were treated successfully by ureteroscopy. Of the 100 patients studied 98 were treated by endourological methods (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy), while 2 required an operation (1 with a ureteropelvic junction calculus and 1 with a mid ureteral calculus). Over-all, 100 patients required a total of 125 procedures to accomplish successful stone removal. An algorithm is developed in which lower ureteral calculi are treated by ureteroscopy, mid ureteral calculi (large and dense) by stent bypass and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or (lucent and fragile) by ureteroscopy, upper ureteral calculi by stent bypass and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy without manipulation, and impacted ureteral stones initially by ureteroscopy and, if necessary, then by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.     

Use of double-pigtail stents in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Double-pigtail stents are placed commonly in patients before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy to prevent ureteral obstruction from steinstrasse. The use of double-pigtail stents in lithotripsy patients with a moderate stone burden was studied in a prospective randomized trial. Patients with unilateral renal stone(s) with at least 1 diameter between 7 and 25 mm. were eligible for the study. Fifty patients were randomized to a control or stented group. Double-pigtail stents with an attached suture were placed immediately before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the stented group. Stents were removed by the patients 1 week after lithotripsy. A survey on pain and associated symptoms was completed by patients at 1 and 14 days after treatment. There was no statistical difference in flank or abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, temperature or use of analgesics at 1 and 14 days after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the control and stented groups. All patients in the stented groups complained of side effects attributable to the stent including urinary frequency and urgency, bladder pain, hematuria and flank pain with urination. Of 25 patients with stents 7 (27%) had early removal because of severe irritation, early migration or accidental removal. Among the patients with follow-up x-rays 1 month after treatment 17 of 21 (81%) in the control group and 12 of 19 (63%) in the stented group showed no evidence of remaining stones. The use of double-pigtail stents is not beneficial in patients with a moderate stone burden. Double-pigtail stents are associated with considerable patient discomfort but no decrease in symptomatic ureteral obstruction or final stone eradication rate.     

输尿管上段结石体外冲击波碎石后联合运用诺仕帕片和舒泌通胶囊治疗效果观察

目的观察联合运用诺仕帕片和舒泌通胶囊治疗输尿管上段结石体外冲击波碎石(ESWL)是否能够减少肾绞痛的发作,促进结石排出。方法将80例接受ESWL的输尿管上段结石患者分为两组,观察组与对照组,术后给观察组予诺仕帕片+舒泌通胶囊口服,对照组仅行体外冲击波碎石(ESWL)治疗,观察两组排石效果,肾绞痛发作频率。结果观察组结石清除率高于对照组(P0.05);肾绞痛发生以及止痛剂使用率均低于对照组(P0.05)。结论输尿管上段结石体ESWL后联合运用诺仕帕片和舒泌通胶囊治疗效果良好,减少了肾绞痛发作。     

电磁式体外冲击波碎石的应用体会和输尿管镜碎石治疗输尿管结石的差别

目的比较电磁式体外冲击波碎石与输尿管镜碎石治疗输尿管结石的效果。方法选择我科室2015年7月至2017年10月就诊的150例输尿管结石患者,随机分为2组,体外冲击波组75例采用电磁式体外冲击波碎石术治疗,输尿管镜组75例采用输尿管镜碎石术治疗,对比两组临床疗效、结石大小、手术时间及并发症发生情况。结果体外冲击波组结石直径1 cm碎石成功率为95.24%,输尿管镜组结石直径1 cm为73.33%,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05),结石直径≥1 cm且2 cm和结石直径≥2 cm两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05),体外冲击波组总碎石成功率合计88.00%,输尿管镜组为72.00%,两组差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);体外冲击波组术后并发症发生率为9.33%,输尿管镜组为21.33%,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论电磁式体外冲击波碎石治疗对于1.0 cm的输尿管结石效果较好,且减少并发症发生。     

输尿管封堵取石导管在输尿管上段结石中的应用

目的探讨输尿管封堵取石导管联合钬激光碎石治疗输尿管上段结石的临床效果。 方法回顾性分析2016年4月至2017年3月在我院诊断为输尿管上段结石并行输尿管镜碎石术患者病例资料,导管组采用输尿管封堵取石导管联合钬激光碎石,对照组仅采用钬激光碎石,比较两组手术效果,并采用Logistic回归分析可造成结石残留率增高的因素。 结果两组患者术前情况差异无统计学意义,全部患者均完成碎石,其中导管组70例患者中58例一期成功碎石取石,12例患者术后有结石残留,有2例需体外碎石。对照组51例患者中30例一期成功碎石取石,20例患者术后有结石残留,有13例需体外碎石。两组术中术后均无严重并发症发生。结石大小、肾积水程度、输尿管扩张程度可影响碎石成功率。 结论输尿管封堵取石导管联合钬激光碎石是治疗输尿管上段结石安全有效的方法,能显著减少结石移位并提高碎石成功率,输尿管扩张程度是影响碎石成功率最主要因素。     

Evaluation of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy without anesthesia using a Dornier HM3 lithotriptor without technical modifications

In 210 patients with urolithiasis extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was performed without regional, general or infiltration anesthesia by means of a technically unmodified Dornier HM3 lithotriptor. The stone burden varied from small ureteral stones to complete staghorn stones. All patients were given premedication with pethidine and diazepam, and a lidocaine-prilocaine-containing cream was applied on the skin at the entry site of the shock wave. Energy usually varied between 14 and 16 kv. More than 90% of the patients reported the pain to be at most of moderate intensity and acceptable. Less than 3% found the treatment unpleasant. The results were compared to those obtained in 250 patients treated with anesthesia according to the original procedure, with a generator voltage of 18 to 23 kv. The number of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy sessions for ureteral and large stones was somewhat higher with the low energy method than with the original procedure. However, the therapeutic result in terms of renal units without stones after 4 weeks was similar to that recorded for patients treated with the anesthesia method. According to these promising results we believe that extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy without anesthesia in an unmodified Dornier HM3 lithotriptor can be performed successfully in a majority of patients and is an attractive alternative to other technical modifications of the equipment.     

Topical EMLA for pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective, comparative, randomized, double-blind study

Patient collaboration in external shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is critical for its correct application, making proper analgesic selection indispensable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of combined application of EMLA and intravenous (i.v.) pethidine compared with pethidine plus placebo cream in patients undergoing ESWL for ureteral and/or renal lithiasis. Prospective, controlled, randomized, double-blind study was conducted in patients receiving ESWL for renal and/or ureterolithiasis. The patients were randomly assigned to receive i.v. pethidine plus either EMLA cream (group A) or placebo hydrating cream (group B). Evaluated were type, location, and size of lithiasis, patient's sex, age, body mass index, comorbidity, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score of pain, and degree of lithiasis fragmentation. EMLA cream provided significantly better pain relief and lithiasis fragmentation and more completed ESWL treatment. Topical application of EMLA cream combined with i.v. pethidine improved VAS scores and lithiasis fragmentation and decreased the rate of withdrawal from ESWL procedure versus i.v. pethidine plus placebo therapy.     

The treatment of 100 consecutive patients with ureteral calculi in a British stone center

Of all ureteral calculi 20 per cent will require removal. The use of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy has changed dramatically the treatment of ureteral stones requiring intervention. We reviewed 111 procedures for 108 stones in 100 consecutive patients. Primary techniques included extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy after retrograde manipulation (63 cases), percutaneous nephrolithotomy alone (1) and after retrograde manipulation (3), ureteroscopic removal (29), cystoscopic removal (2) and open ureterolithotomy (2). These techniques and the results are discussed. Of the patients 11 required a secondary procedure, including extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 3, ureterorenoscopy for failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 2, an open operation for complications of ureterorenoscopy in 2 and correction of associated stricture in 2. All patients ultimately were free of stones. Our experience with in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is described. An open operation was done only when less invasive forms of treatment failed or electively to correct an associated anatomical abnormality.     

Is pre-shock wave lithotripsy stenting necessary for ureteral stones with moderate or severe hydronephrosis?

PURPOSE: We performed a prospective, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the outcome of ureteral stents for solitary ureteral stones 2 cm or less in moderately or severely obstructed systems using shock wave lithotripsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2001 and 2004, 186 patients who met study criteria were randomized into 2 groups. Group 1 received a pre-shock wave lithotripsy 6Fr Double-J stent and group 2 had no stent. Patients were treated with a Dornier MFL 5000 lithotripter. Results were compared in terms of clearance rates, number of shock waves and sessions, irritative voiding symptoms, incidence of complications and secondary interventions. Failure was defined as the need for additional procedure(s) for stone extraction. RESULTS: Overall 164 patients (88.2%) became stone-free after shock wave lithotripsy. Complete stone fragmentation was achieved after 1 to 3 and more than 3 session in 108 (58.1%), 30 (16.1%), 13 (7%) and 14 patients (7.5%), respectively. Ureteral stent insertion did not affect the stone-free rate, which was 84.9% and 91.4% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.25). There was no statistical difference in the re-treatment rate, flank pain or temperature in the 2 groups. However, all patients in the stented group significantly complained of side effects attributable to the stent, including dysuria, suprapubic pain, hematuria, pyuria and positive urinary culture. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment stenting provides no advantage over in situ shock wave lithotripsy for significantly obstructing ureteral calculi. Shock wave lithotripsy is reasonable initial therapy for ureteral stones 2 cm or less that cause moderate or severe hydronephrosis.     

输尿管镜下钬激光碎石治疗输尿管中上段结石1200例报告

目的评估输尿管镜钬激光碎石治疗输尿管中上段结石的安全性和有效性。方法对2005年1月～2010年12月输尿管镜下钬激光碎石治疗的1 200例输尿管中上段结石患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果一次性结石清除率95.4%（1 145/1 200）,其中,第三腰椎下缘以上结石为75.7%（28/37）,第三腰椎下缘至骶髂关节上缘结石为92.6%（486/525）,骶髂关节段结石为98.9%（631/638）。3.6%（43/1 200）患者因碎石移位改行ESWL术。9例出现输尿管穿孔,除2例改开放手术外,7例成功留置双＂J＂管3月后再次行输尿管镜钬激光碎石获成功。本组手术时间20～90min,平均（45.6±17.4）min,术中未发生大出血、输尿管撕脱、断裂等,术中输尿管黏膜撕裂4例,黏膜下假道形成8例,均顺利留置双＂J＂管,随访1～6月无尿囊肿和输尿管狭窄形成。术后患侧肾绞痛57例、腹部胀痛24例、发热28例,予以抗感染、对症治疗后好转。术后2～3d拔除导尿管,术后住院天数3～7d,平均（4.3±1.2）d。结论输尿管镜钬激光碎石术,具有微创、高效、并发症少、恢复快等优点,在掌握一定输尿管镜技巧的基础上处理中上段输尿管结石可取得比较好的疗效。但对L3水平以上且直径大于1.0cm的结石不建议使用输尿管镜处理。     

Management of upper ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

The results of 471 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatments in 465 patients with solitary ureteral stones managed by several different techniques are reported. In situ treatment was performed in 123 cases without instrumentation and in 47 after placement of a ureteral catheter. Retrograde stone manipulation was performed in 245 cases immediately before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and an additional 56 were manipulated with ureteral stent placement at least 1 week before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. The success rate was significantly greater if the stone was manipulated into the kidney before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Significantly less energy (p less than 0.0001) was required for complete disintegration if the stone was free floating in the kidney. The need for subsequent procedures was significantly less (p less than 0.0001) for stones manipulated successfully into the kidney. Complications were infrequent, with the most common being ureteral perforation in 5.1 per cent of the cases, all of which were managed conservatively. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is the treatment of choice for proximal ureteral calculi because it is less morbid than percutaneous approaches and provides significantly better results than ureteroscopy. An attempt at manipulation of proximal ureteral calculi back into the kidney should be made before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.     

Treatment of pacemaker patients with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: experience from 2 continents

Patients with cardiac pacemakers currently are treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy only by agreement between individual physicians and patients. We present the results of a survey of patterns of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment (or nontreatment) of patients with pacemakers in the United States and Europe. Letters of inquiry regarding treatment of pacemaker patients were sent to 141 United States extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy sites and 55 sites in Europe. Responses were received from 81 (57%) and 17 (31%) sites, respectively. A total of 131 patients received 142 treatments and pacemaker-related complications occurred in 4 (none was lethal, 3 were minor and all were corrected immediately). No patient required replacement of the pacemaker. No correlation existed between complications and pacemaker type or manufacturer. Urologists who treat patients with a pacemaker required previous clearance of the patients by the cardiologist, a cardiologist in or near the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy suite and standby of corrective equipment or temporary pacemakers.     

Morbidity associated with indwelling internal ureteral stents after shock wave lithotripsy

Placement of internal ureteral stents before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of large stone burdens has decreased the incidence of post-extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy colic, secondary endoscopic procedures and prolonged hospital stays. However, indwelling stents have an associated patient morbidity and intolerance. A telephone survey of 50 patients (average stone burden 28 mm.) who were discharged from the hospital after treatment with an indwelling internal polymer stent was performed with a standard questionnaire. Symptoms reported with in situ internal ureteral stents included gross hematuria (42 per cent), fever or chills (20 per cent), and persistent discomfort or pain in the bladder and/or flank (26 to 38 per cent). Of the patients 44 per cent reported moderate to intolerable discomfort that was relieved by removal of the stent. The degree of symptoms was not associated with stent composition, style or length, or the presence of a transurethral string. Five patients had premature migration or dislodgment of the internal stent and 4 reported episodes of obstructive pyelonephritis requiring removal of an impacted stent or endourological intervention. Internal ureteral stents placed before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy have an identifiable patient morbidity while indwelling and, therefore, they should be used judiciously according to the stone burden, renal anatomy and body habitus.     

A randomized outcomes trial of ureteral stents for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of solitary kidney or proximal ureteral stones

PURPOSE: Routine use of ureteral stents before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of kidney stones between 10 and 20 mm. is controversial. We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial to evaluate the outcome of ureteral stents for treating solitary kidney stones between 10 and 20 mm. or solitary proximal ureteral stones less than 20 mm. with shock wave lithotripsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 97 patients who met the aforementioned criteria were randomized between March 1994 to July 1997 into group 1-no stent, group 2-a 4.7Fr multi-length stent and group 3-a 7Fr multi-length stent. The patients were treated with the Dornier HM3 lithotriptor (Dornier Medical Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia) and monitored for stone-free rate, number of days lost from work, number of patients requiring rehospitalization, emergency room visits, irritative voiding symptom score and pain symptom score. RESULTS: Objective outcome was obtained from 91 patients based on a followup of at least 3 months. The overall stone-free rate was 80%, with a re-treatment rate of 7%. The number of days lost from work was approximately 2, with no significant differences among individual groups or subgroups. The hospitalization rate and number of emergency room visits in group 1 (22%) were statistically higher compared to groups 2 (7%) and 3 (7%). The irritative voiding symptom score was statistically higher in the stented groups 2 and 3 compared to the nonstented group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Although ureteral stents are associated with more irritative symptoms, their use resulted in fewer hospital readmissions and emergency room visits compared to when no stent was used to treat solitary kidney stones of 10 to 20 mm. or solitary proximal ureteral stones less than 20 mm. Size 4.7Fr stents may be preferable over 7Fr stents when used in conjunction with shock wave lithotripsy.