Does stone dimension affect the effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones?

Objective To investigate whether stone dimension is a restrictive factor for ureterorenoscopic procedures. Materials and methods A group of 416 patients who had undergone ureterorenoscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS-PL) for lower ureteral stones between January 1999 and June 2006 in our clinic had been evaluated retrospectively. Two hundred and seventy (270, 64.9%) patients were men and 146 (35.1%) were women. The mean age of the patients was 36.61 (±12.43) years. Patients were grouped according to stone dimension; 193 patients with stones smaller than 1 cm being group 1 and 223 patients with stones ≥1 cm in dimension being group 2. Stone-free rate, operative time and rate of complications of the groups were compared. Pearson’s correlation test, χ² test, Fischer’s exact test and Student’s t-test were used for the statistical analysis. The p value was accepted as being meaningful if p < 0.05. Results For group 1, the mean operative time was 39.19 (±18.33) min. Proximal stone migration in five and false passage formation in three patients was observed. Three patients were stone-free after a second session of URS-PL. The cumulative stone-free rate was 97.4% (188/193). For group 2, the mean operative time was 48.5 (±11.31) min. About 208 (93.27%) patients were stone-free after the first session and an additional eight patients became stone-free after the second session of URS-PL. False passage, ureteral perforation, ureteral avulsion and stricture were observed in four, six, one and one patients, respectively. No proximal stone migration was observed. The cumulative stone-free rate was 96.86% (216/223). Conclusions The effectiveness of ureterorenoscopy (URS) in the treatment of distal ureteral stones was independent of stone dimension. However, the operative time was longer and the rate of perforation was higher in stones with a diameter ≥1 cm. On the other hand, the migration rate was higher in stones <1 cm in diameter. Generally speaking, there was no meaningful effect of stone dimension on complication rates.     

Is stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy in patients with solitary upper-caliceal stone influenced by anatomic differences in the pelvicaliceal system?

PURPOSE: We investigated the effect of pelvicaliceal differences on stone clearance after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with solitary upper-caliceal stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical records of patients with solitary upper-caliceal stones who underwent SWL between 1996 and 2004 were reviewed. After excluding patients with hydronephrosis, significant anatomic abnormalities, non-calcium stones, metabolic abnormalities, recurrent stone disease, multiple stones, and previous renal surgery, 42 patients with a mean stone size of 153.47 mm2 (range 20-896 mm2) were enrolled in this study. They were divided into three groups according to stone burden (group 1 < or =100 mm2, group 2,101 mm2-200 mm2, and group 3 >200 mm2). Upper-pole infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), infundibular length (IL), and infundibular width (IW) were measured from intravenous urograms. Results: Of the total, 29 patients (69%) were stone free after SWL treatment. The differences in the upperpole IPA, IL, and IW of stone-free patients and patients with residual stones were not statistically significant (P = 0.85, P = 0.89, and P = 0.37, respectively). Again, there were no statistically significant differences in terms of upper IPA, IW, and IL in comparing the three groups divided by initial stone size. Conclusion: Upper-caliceal anatomy does not exert a significant impact on stone clearance after SWL for isolated upper-caliceal stones. To best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the effects of pelvicaliceal anatomy on SWL treatment for upper-caliceal stones, so there is a need for further investigations to confirm our findings.     

Treatment of lower ureteral stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or intracorporeal lithotripsy?

OBJECTIVE: In this study, 1121 patients with lower ureteral stones were evaluated to compare the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy with three different lithotripsy modalities. METHODS: Of these patients, 726 were treated with SWL, whereas 430 underwent ureteroscopy, with pneumatic lithotripsy (PL), ultrasonic lithotripsy (USL), and electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) performed in 125 (29.0%), 276 (64.2%), and 29 (6.8%) patients, respectively. Thirty-five patients underwent both types of treatment because of unsuccessful SWL therapy. RESULTS: In the SWL group, the stone-free rate was 42.2% and the fragmentation rate was 59.5%. These values were 96.8% and 98.4% for PL, 89.4% and 90.5% for USL, 93.1% and 96.5% for EHL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that SWL was less effective than ureteroscopic lithotripsy (p < 0.001). The PL modality had the highest stone-free and fragmentation rate, and EHL had the highest complication rate (43.5%). Ureteroscopic lithotripsy is the most effective treatment choice in lower ureteral stones no matter which kind of energy is used, and PL is the most effective and least morbid approach.     

Brushite stone disease as a consequence of lithotripsy?

The incidence of calcium phosphate (CaP) stone disease has increased over the last three decades; specifically, brushite stones have been diagnosed and treated more frequently than in previous years. Brushite is a unique form of CaP, which in certain patients can form into large symptomatic stones. Treatment of brushite stones can be difficult since the stones are resistant to shock wave and ultrasonic lithotripsy, and often require ballistic fragmentation. Patients suffering from brushite stone disease are less likely to be rendered stone free after surgical intervention and often experience stone recurrence despite maximal medical intervention. Studies have demonstrated an association between brushite stone disease and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment. Some have theorized that many brushite stone formers started as routine calcium oxalate (CaOx) stone formers who sustained an injury to the nephron (such as SWL). The injury to the nephron leads to failure of urine acidification and eventual brushite stone formation. We explore the association between brushite stone disease and iatrogenic transformation of CaOx stone disease to brushite by reviewing the current literature.     

A cost–utility analysis of treatment options for inguinal hernia in 1,513,008 adult patients

Background: The controversial issue of the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is examined, employing a decision analytic method. Materials and methods: The NSAS, NHDS (National Center for Health Statistics), HCUP-NIS (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) databases and 51 randomized controlled trials were analyzed. The study group constituted of a total of 1,513,008 hernia repairs. Projection of the clinical, economic, and quality-of-life outcomes expected from the different treatment options was done by using a Markov Monte Carlo decision model. Two logistic regression models were used to predict the probability of hospital admission after an ambulatory procedure and the probability of death after inguinal hernia repair. Four treatment strategies were modeled: (1) laparoscopic repair (LR), (2) open mesh (OM), (3) open non-mesh (ONM), and (4) expectant management. Costs were expressed in US dollars and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The main outcome measures were the average and the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) ratios. Results: Compared to the expectant management, the incremental cost per QALY gained was $605 ($4086, 9.04 QALYs) for LR, $697 ($4290, 8.975 QALYs) for OM, and $1711 ($6200, 8.546 QALYs) for ONM. In sensitivity analysis the two major components that affect the cost-effectiveness ratio of the different types of repair were the ambulatory facility cost and the recurrence rate. At a LR ambulatory facility cost of $5526 the ICER of LR compared to OM surpasses the threshold of $50,000/QALY. Conclusions: On the basis of our assumptions this mathematical model shows that from a societal perspective laparoscopic approach can be a cost-effective treatment option for inguinal hernia repair.     

Combined ureterorenoscopy and shockwave lithotripsy for large renal stone burden: an alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and initial outcomes of a combination of ureterorenoscopy (URS) using holmium laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in a single outpatient session for the treatment of large renal stone burdens in patients refusing or unsuitable for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with a mean age of 52.7 years (range 34-81 years) having a mean stone burden of 847 mm2 (range 58 mm2-1850 mm2) were treated with combined URS laser lithotripsy and SWL as an alternative to PCNL. The SWL (mean 2800 shockwaves) was performed using the Storz Modulith SL-X, and flexible URS with holmium laser lithotripsy was performed either during or following SWL. RESULTS: Ninety-three percent of the patients (13/14) were treated successfully on an outpatient basis. Two patients were rendered stone free after the initial procedure alone (14%). Overall, including secondary outpatient treatment with a second session of URS alone (N = 7) URS and SWL (N = 1), SWL (N = 1), or oral alkalinization therapy (N = 1), the stone-free rate was 76.9% (10/13). One patient was excluded secondary to death from unrelated causes after the initial procedure, and the success rate (residual fragments <4 mm) was 84.6% (11/13). The two treatment failures included one patient who required a third URS procedure and one patient who developed urosepsis necessitating nephrostomy-tube placement who underwent subsequent PCNL. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with traditional approaches using PCNL and second-look nephroscopy, single-session combined URS and SWL with a second outpatient procedure may offer equivalent results with decreased morbidity in carefully selected patients.     

Is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy the preferred treatment option for elderly patients with urinary stone? A multivariate analysis of the effect of patient age on treatment outcome

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of patient age on the stone-free rate (SFR) in patients with urinary calculi treated by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 2192 solitary radio-opaque urinary stones of 5-15 mm were identified in adult patients receiving primary ESWL. Patients were divided into three age groups, i.e. < or = 40, 41-60 and >60 years (579, 1026 and 587 patients, respectively). Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the effect of age and other possible predicting factors (gender, stone characteristics, e.g. side, site and size, and the type of lithotripter used) on the SFR at 3 months after treatment. RESULTS: The overall adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for the SFR for those aged 41-60 and >60 years (taking those aged < or= 40 years as the reference) were 0.708 (0.573-0.875; P = 0.001) and 0.643 (0.506-0.818; P < 0.001). However, if the patients were divided into those with renal or ureteric stones, only the SFR of the former was affected by age, and the adjusted odds ratios were 0.665 (0.512-0.864; P = 0.002) and 0.629 (0.470-0.841; P = 0.002), respectively. Ageing had no effect on the SFR for ureteric stones. CONCLUSION: The SFR after ESWL for renal stones, but not ureteric stones, was significantly lower in older patients. Further studies on the effects of ageing on renal stone clearance after ESWL are needed to improve stone management in the elderly population.     

Is shock wave lithotripsy efficient for the elderly stone formers? Results of a matched-pair analysis

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), in a comparative study based on the principles of matched-pair analysis. Over a period of 4 years, 2,311 patients were treated with SWL in a tertiary referral center. Patient and stone data were recorded in a prospective electronic database. Among these patients, 115 (4.97%) were older than 70 years of age and fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the study (Group A). For the purposes of the comparative analysis, Group A patients were matched for gender and stone parameters (side, location of stone, and diameter ±2 mm) with a control group of patients under the age of 70 (Group B). Following matching, the patients' electronic medical records were reviewed, to identify SWL success rates at 3 months and McNemar's test was used to compare the efficacy of SWL between the two groups. Matching was possible in all cases. The results indicate that there were no statistically significant differences in the mean number of SWL sessions or in the mean number of impulses per session between the two groups. The overall stone clearance rate achieved by SWL alone was 71.3% for Group A and 73.9% for group B. Discordant pairs were found in 37 cases (in 17 pairs only patients in Group A became stone-free, while in 20 pairs only patients in Group B became stone-free). By using McNemar's test, the difference in stone clearance rates between the two groups was not found to be statistically significant (p = 0.742). A total of 22 patients (19.1%) in Group A and 17 patients (14.7%) in Group B underwent an adjuvant procedure to achieve stone clearance. McNemar's test also revealed the absence of any statistically significant difference in SWL success rates between older and younger patients in the subgroups of patients presenting with either ureteric or renal stones (p = 0.727 and p = 0.571, respectively). In conclusion, SWL is still considered one of the first-line tools for geriatric patients suffering from urolithiasis, as increased age alone does not seem to adversely affect the efficacy of SWL.     

How long should double J stent be kept in after ureteroscopic lithotripsy?

Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (UL), for renal or ureteral stones, is a standard technique for every urologist. However, the length of time the double J (DJ) stent needs to be kept in postoperatively is still controversial. This study investigated how the duration of DJ stenting after UL affects postoperative adverse events, especially infection and pain. One hundred and twenty-five patients were enrolled in this study and data were analyzed retrospectively. We set the median duration for keeping the DJ stent postoperatively as 14 days from median value in all cases and compared it to a longer duration group (>15 days) and a shorter duration group (<14 days) in terms of febrile complications, urinalysis, and the need to give antibiotics at the time of DJ stent removal. The duration of DJ stenting was from 3 to 61 (median 14) days. Thirteen patients had adverse events related to DJ stent removal (febrile complications, 11 patients; lumbago, 2 patients). Thirty-one patients were given antibiotics at the time of DJ stent removal. Patients with longer durations (>15 days) of DJ stenting had a significantly higher ratio of adverse events such as fever or lumbago (p = 0.041). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that shorter duration (<14 days) DJ stent use after UL may decrease adverse events and require less antibiotic use. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal duration of DJ stent use after UL.