The effectivity and morbidity of URS as auxiliary therapy after ESWL

We were interested in the effectivity and morbidity of URS as an auxiliary treatment in patients who underwent ESWL for ureteral (n = 71) and kidney stones (n = 31). Between 1991 and 1995, 102 URS were performed for treatment of ureteral fragments. 28 (27.5%) were located in the proximal, 24 (23.5%) in the middle and 50 (49%) in the distal ureter. In 25 cases, fragments were found as "Steinstrasse". In the same period of time, 2554 patients with ureteral stones were treated with ESWL alone, therefore the overall rate of URS was low (4%). URS alone had a stonefree success rate of 58.9%. The success rate depended on the location of the ureteral stone: proximal 25%, middle 50% and distal 82%. URS combined with ESWL showed an overall success rate of 97.9%. Finally, only 2 patients (2.1%) required an open surgery. 29.3% of the stones were treated by extraction only. The extraction of stone was the most frequent procedure to remove the fragments after ESWL. The rate of complications were 6.9%. None of the patients suffered from late complications like stricture of the ureter. The URS for the treatment of stone fragments after ESWL has been shown to be an effective and safe procedure with a low rate of complications.     

The effectivity and morbidity of URS as auxiliary therapy after ESWL I. Teil: Sicherheit und Effektivit?t der URS als auxili?re Behandlung nach ESWL

We were interested in the effectivity and morbidity of URS as an auxiliary treatment in patients who underwent ESWL for ureteral (n = 71) and kidney stones (n = 31). Between 1991 and 1995, 102 URS were performed for treatment of ureteral fragments. 28 (27.5 %) were located in the proximal, 24 (23.5 %) in the middle and 50 (49 %) in the distal ureter. In 25 cases, fragmentes were found as “Steinstrasse”. In the same period of time, 2554 patients with ureteral stones were treated with ESWL alone, therefore the overall rate of URS was low (4 %). URS alone had a stonefree success rate of 58.9 %. The success rate depended on the location of the ureteral stone: proximal 25 %, middle 50 % and distal 82 %. URS combined with ESWL showed an overall success rate of 97.9 %. Finally, only 2 patients (2,1 %) required an open surgery. 29.3 % of the stones were treated by extraction only. The extraction of stone was the most frequent procedure to remove the fragments after ESWL. The rate of complications were 6.9 %. None of the patients suffered from late complications like stricture of the ureter. The URS for the treatment of stone fragments after ESWL has been shown to be an effective and safe procedure with a low rate of complications.     

Balloon dilation for ureteral stricture with stone fragments after ESWL]

We treated 5 cases of severe hydronephrosis with balloon dilation. Those hydronephrosis were due to the ureteral stricture with small stone fragments after ESWL (Lithostar). In each case, in situ ESWL had been done on a long-lodged ureteric stone with severe hydronephrosis. And even after the disintegration of stone with ESWL, hydronephrosis remained due to ureteral stricture with small stone fragments. Balloon dilation was done through percutaneous nephrostomy tract in 4 cases and via retrograde transurethral routine in 1 case. Balloon dilation catheter (7 fr. 6 mm diameter 4-10 cm length, Bard Co.) was used. There was no need for stone extraction. After dilation, ureteric stents (8.2/7 fr.) were kept in place for 4-8 weeks. Intravenous urogram was taken on 4-8 weeks after removing ureteric stents. In all of the 5 cases, improvement of hydronephrosis was remarkable. And there was no residual stone fragments in 4 cases. It is concluded that balloon dilation for ureteral stricture with stone fragments after ESWL is very useful. For the valid evaluation of balloon dilation, further experience and longer observation are requisite.     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi: what a powerful machine can achieve

PURPOSE: We assessed the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL, Dornier Medical Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia) for distal ureteral calculi with the HM3 (Dornier Medical Systems, Inc.) lithotriptor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 585 consecutive patients with distal ureteral calculi were treated with ESWL using an unmodified HM3 lithotriptor. Of these patients 67 referred for treatment only for whom no followup was available were excluded from further analysis. The remaining 518 cases were followed until they were radiologically documented to be stone-free or considered treatment failures. Before ESWL additional procedures were performed in 144 patients, including stone push back, ureteral catheter or Double-J (Medical Engineering Corp., New York, New York) stent placement, percutaneous nephrostomy, ureteral endoscopic maneuvers or stone basket manipulation. A total of 374 patients needed no preliminary treatment before ESWL. RESULTS: Of the 518 patients 469 (91%) were successfully treated with 1 ESWL session, while 49 (9%) needed 2 or 3. Manipulation after ESWL was performed in 22 cases, including stent placement, percutaneous nephrostomy, ureteral endoscopic stone removal and a stone basket procedure. On day 1 after ESWL 327 patients (63%) were stone-free, 158 (30%) had less than 5 mm. fragments and 33 (7%) had more than 5 mm. fragments. At 3 months the stone-free rate increased to 97%. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that ESWL for distal ureteral calculi with the powerful unmodified HM3 lithotriptor has a high success rate with a low rate of minimally traumatic manipulations before and after intervention. Results in terms of the re-treatment and stone-free rates are superior to those of any other second or third generation lithotriptor and comparable to the results of the best ureteroscopic series.     

ESWL monotherapy for large-volume renal calculi: efficacy and morbidity

We assessed the efficacy and morbidity of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) monotherapy in the treatment of 25 consecutive patients with large-volume renal calculi (surface area greater than or equal to 5.0 cm2). Eighteen of the calculi were infection (struvite) stones and 7 were sterile stones. In 21 cases internal ureteral stents were positioned before ESWL, but no patient underwent pretreatment percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) or percutaneous nephrostolithotomy (PNL). An average of 2.1 procedures including ESWL, PCN, or ureteral interventions were required to achieve a stone-free renal collecting system and ureter, or residual stone particles less than 4 mm in diameter confined to the renal collecting system. Sixty percent of the patients required no ancillary procedures after ESWL. There were no differences in the mean duration of hospitalization, need for post-treatment ancillary procedures, time to clearance of ureteral fragments, and incidence of residual stone particles among patients with infection and sterile stones. Of 23 patients observed greater than three months (mean 10.9 mos) after ESWL, 43 percent had residual stone particles in the renal collecting system. Expansion of these particles or stone recurrence in the absence of residual particles has not been observed. We conclude that large volume renal calculi may be managed effectively and safely with ESWL monotherapy.     

Dormia支架在ESWL中的选择性应用

目的 探讨防止体外冲击波碎石（ＥＳＷＬ）治疗巨大肾结石后发生石街的方法。方法 采用ＥＳＷＬ结合预置Ｄｏｒｍｉａ支架的方法治疗巨大肾结石１５例,结果 全部患者术后均未发生嵌顿性石街,大部分结石粉末可通过拔除支架一同带出或沿支架自行排出,结论：Ｄｏｒｍｉａ支架作为巨大肾结石ＥＳＷＬ的辅助治疗工有有效地防止术后石街形成,促进碎石排出,但应注意掌握其适用范围和留置时限。     

输尿管结石行体外冲击波碎石治疗后发生输尿管狭窄的危险因素分析

目的探讨输尿管结石经体外冲击波碎石治疗后发生狭窄的危险因素。方法收集2006年7月至2011年7月就诊于我院首次行体外冲击波碎石治疗的输尿管结石患者的临床资料,先对所取临床指标进行单因素分析,然后进行Logistic多因素回归分析。结果共收集行体外冲击波碎石的输尿管结石患者174例,其中发生术后输尿管狭窄的患者15例,狭窄发生率为8.62%,单因素分析显示:结石长径、肾积水程度、结石嵌顿时间以及碎石次数与术后输尿管狭窄发生相关,多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示:结石长径、肾积水程度以及碎石次数是患者发生输尿管狭窄的独立危险因素。结论对于肾积水程度较重、结石长径较大、预期碎石次数较多的输尿管结石患者,行体外冲击波碎石后发生狭窄的可能性相对较高,在治疗选择上应更加慎重,提倡选择体外冲击波碎石之外更加安全有效的治疗方式。     

Clinical study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for stones in solitary kidney

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment was performed on 17 patients with a solitary or sole functioning kidney from August 1986 to April 1988. Some patients with renal stone had a double pig tail catheter to protect the stone street and those with ureteral stones had a ureteral balloon occlusion catheter to raise the efficiency of fragmentation placed prior to ESWL as much as possible. Combined manipulation with such an instrument as nephrostomy tube to wash out residual stone fragments or endoscopic operation were performed. Despite of these devices, ESWL treatments for staghorn calculi and cystine stones were troublesome in solitary kidneys. After follow up ranged from 9 to 602 days (mean 87.6 days), 10 patients (58.8%) were stone free. ESWL treatment is safe and effective for solitary kidneys. We recommended premedication and pretreatment by ureteral stenting in patients with a solitary kidney.     

体外冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效比较

目的　比较体外冲击波碎石术 (ESWL)与输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术 (pneumaticlithotripsy ,PL)治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效和安全性。 方法　总结ESWL和PL治疗输尿管下段结石 3 75例的临床资料 ,其中ESWL组 190例 ,PL组 185例。结果　ESWL组单次碎石成功率为 60 .5 %(115 /190 ) ,PL组为 96.2 %(178/185 ) ;ESWL组术后 4周结石排净率为 66.3 %(12 6/190 ) ,PL组为 98.3 %(175 /178)。结论　PL治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效明显优于ESWL。     

Efficacy of expulsive therapy using nifedipine or tamsulosin,both associated with ketoprofene,after shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is currently considered one of the main treatments for ureteral stones. Some studies have reported the effectiveness of pharmacologic therapies (calcium antagonists or alpha-blockers) in facilitating ureteral stone expulsion after ESWL. We prospectively evaluated the efficacy, after ESWL, of nifedipine on upper-middle ureteral stones, and tamsulosin on lower ureteral stones, both associated to ketoprofene as anti-edema agent. From January 2003 to March 2005 we prospectively evaluated 113 patients affected by radiopaque or radiolucent ureteral stones. Average stone size was 10.16 ± 2.00 mm (range 6–14 mm). Thirty-seven stones were located in the upper ureter, 27 in the middle ureter, and 49 in the lower ureter. All patients received a single session of ESWL (mean number of shock waves: 3,500) by means of a Dornier Lithotripter S (mean energy power for each treatment: 84%). Both ultrasound and X-ray were used for stone scanning. After treatment, 63 of 113 patients were submitted to medical therapy to aid stone expulsion: nifedipine 30 mg/day for 14 days administered to 35 patients with upper-middle ureteral stones (group A1) and tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day for 14 days administered to 28 patients with stones located in the distal ureter (group A2). The remaining 50 patients were used as a control group (29 upper–middle ureteral stones—B1—and 21 lower ureteral stones—B2—), receiving only pain-relieving therapy. No significant difference in stone size between the groups defined was observed. Stone clearance was assessed 1 and 2 months after ESWL by means of KUB, ultrasound scan and/or excretory urography. A stone-free condition was defined as complete stone clearance or the presence of residual fragments smaller than 3 mm in diameter. The stone-free rates in the expulsive medical therapy group were 85.7 and 82.1% for the nifedipine (A1) and tamsulosin (A2) groups respectively; stone-free rates in the control groups were 51.7 and 57.1% (B1 and B2, respectively). Five patients (14.3%) in group A1, 5 (17.8%) in group A2, 14 (48.3%) in group B1 and 9 (42.8%) in group B2 were not stone-free after a single ESWL session and required ESWL re-treatment or an endoscopic treatment. Medical therapy following ESWL to facilitate ureteral stone expulsion results in increased 1- and 2-month stone-free rates and in a lower percentage of those needing re-treatment. The efficacy of nifedipine for the upper-mid ureteral tract associated with ketoprofene makes expulsive medical therapy suitable for improving overall outcomes of ESWL treatment for ureteral stones.     

Utility of ureteral stent for stone street after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

We reviewed the records of the 530 patients with urinary stones (renal stones: 243; ureter stones 287) who received extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (MFL5000; Dornier), from January 1995 to July 2002, retrospectively and determined whether the ureteral stent affected the incidence rate of stone street (SS). We also assessed the effect of ureteral stent on the subsequent management for SS. Forty patients (7.5%) developed SS. Twenty patients were inserted a ureteral stent prior to ESWL (stent group), and 20 patients were performed ESWL without a ureteral stent (in situ group). In the stent group, the most common (80.0%) location for SS was in the upper third ureter, while in the in situ group, SS mostly developed in the distal third ureter (60.0%). The incidence of SS did not differ significantly between the two groups when the size of renal and ureter stones was below 30 and 20 mm, respectively. When the renal stones were larger than above 30 mm, the incidence of SS in the stent group was significantly higher than that in the in situ group. SS disappeared spontaneously with stone passage in 10 of the patients in in situ group, but in only 1 patient in the stent group. In the stent group, 15 patients were treated for SS by removal of ureteral stent regardless of stone diameter. We conclude that ESWL should be performed without a ureteral stent when the stone diameter is below 20 mm. When the ureteral stent is thought to interfere with the delivery of stone fragments, the decision to remove it should be made as soon as possible.     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stone using piezoelectric lithotripter (Piezolith 2200)

The results of clinical trial using the second generation extracorporeal shock wave lithotripter (Piezolith 2200, Wolf, West Germany) were presented. The treatments were performed between December 1987 and March 1988 at the University of Tokyo. In total 59 ESWL sessions were carried out on 32 patients with 48 upper urinary tract stones. The treatment could be performed without anesthesia or analgesic agent in every case. A double-J ureteral stent was indwelling in 6 patients with ureteral stones or large stones before ESWL treatment, and transurethral lithotripsy (TUL) was performed in two patients after the treatment. On the X-ray film obtained three weeks after the final ESWL treatment, 13 cases (40.6%) were completely free from stone fragments, while 9 cases (28.2%) had stone fragments less than or equal to 5 mm. Others had fragments greater than 5 mm. ESWL using this device was clinically useful in 71.9% in the three weeks follow-up period. No serious complication was observed after treatment except macroscopic hematuria for a few days in all cases, pyrexia in 4 cases (12.5%) and flank pain in 7 cases (21.9%). There were slight and transient changes in the laboratory data after the treatment, but these changes were milder than those with spark gap lithotripters. It is concluded that Piezolith 2200 is useful in the management of patients with upper urinary tract stones, and it is applicable more safely than the first generation lithotripters.     

Two years clinical experiences with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and transurethral ureterolithotripsy for ureteral stones at Osaka City University Hospital

From July 1985 to June 1987, 303 patients with ureteral stones were treated by either extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or transurethral ureterolithotripsy (TUL). The ureteral stones were classified into two groups, upper and lower ureteral stones. The upper ureteral stone was defined as a stone located above the pelvic brim in radiological examinations. ESWL was performed using a Dornier lithotriptor HM-3. For TUL, following the insertion of a guide wire and dilatation of the intramural ureter by ureteral bougie, a ureteroscope was introduced into the ureter. The success rate included both patients who became stone free and patients whose stones were disintegrated into less than 4 mm. The success rate of ESWL for upper ureteral stones was 90%, and 8.5% were treated subsequently by TUL. The success rate of TUL for upper ureteral stones was 42%, and the remaining required another session of TUL or another procedure, mainly ESWL. On the other hand, the success rate of TUL for lower ureteral stones was 71%, and the remainder also required another session of TUL or another procedure, mainly ESWL. The efficacy of TUL for stone street was comparably low by the evaluation done at 5 days after the procedure. However, almost all patients with stone street, which had developed after ESWL treatment, became stone free several weeks after TUL and insertion of a stent catheter. Major complications or side effects for ESWL were fever of more than 37.5 degrees C (7.5%) and pain attacks (8.9%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteral calculi: a prospective study.

146 patients whose ureteral stones did not pass spontaneously participated in a prospective study on optimal management. Patients were offered two treatment options: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS). The stone was treated with the technique preferred by the patient. In case of treatment failure after first-line therapy, patients again could decide on how to proceed. Stone analysis could be obtained from 72.6% patients. ESWL was the primary treatment in 66.4% patients. In 2 patients, ESWL was the secondary treatment after failed URS. URS was the first-line therapy in 33.6% patients. In 29 patients URS was done after failed ESWL. For analgesia, sedoanalgesia or spinal anesthesia were used. Analgesia was required in 74.2% ESWL and 100% URS sessions. Following ESWL, 70.1% patients became stone free. In 29.9% ESWL failed. Distal stones had a higher failure rate than proximal or mid-ureteral calculi. Distal stones treated without success were significantly larger than those treated successfully. Failures were switched to URS. Stone analysis could be obtained in 26 patients with failed ESWL: 23/26 consisted of pure whewellite or mixed whewellite stones. Clinically relevant complications were not observed. After URS, 94.9% of the patients became stone free. In distal stones, the stone-free rate was 97.5%. There was only 1 relevant complication: a proximal ureteral lesion requiring surgical repair. Our study demonstrates that URS is a safe and highly effective treatment option for ureteral stones. In patients with distal ureteral stones, it should be offered as a first-line treatment. When whewellite is expected as the stone mineral, URS is the treatment of choice.     

Clinical experiences of renal and ureteral stones by extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL). IV: 3-year clinical experience of cases treated with ESWL

We report our 3-year experience with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) since we first used it for upper urinary tract stones on September 1st, 1984. A total of 1,225 patients (1,320 cases) underwent 1,647 sessions with ESWL; They consisted of 855 males (70%) and 370 females (30%). Treated stone locations were 593 renal stones, which contained 112 complete staghorn calculi, 504 ureteral stones, 110 renoureteral stones, and 1 bladder stone. ESWL monotherapy was performed on 90% of cases with renal and ureteral stones, and 46% of cases with complete staghorn calculi. In all the cases so far observed for more than 12 weeks after ESWL, 84.9% of the former showed complete discharge of the stones, and 0.7% showed no change. Only 48.9% of the later showed the complete discharge of the stones, 43.3% of which had residual stones, and 7.8% had fragments of the size of small beans. Complications, which were fever and pain, were noticed in 33.6% of the cases with renal and ureteral stones, and 64.3% of the cases with complete staghorn calculi. After ESWL, hematuria was noticed in almost cases, but the average volume of hemorrhage was 28 +/- 33 ml/day. The only contraindication of ESWL was severe obesity, and in the cases in which spontaneous stone discharge can be expected.     

Rapid extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment after a first colic episode correlates with accelerated ureteral stone clearance

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between delay in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) after a first colic and subsequent time to complete stone clearance. METHODS: This prospective, non-randomized study included 94 patients treated with ESWL for unilateral solitary proximal ureteral stones after at least one episode of colic pain. Time between the first onset of colic pain and ESWL and stone clearance was recorded. The pretherapeutic degree of hydronephrosis has been assessed using ultrasound. RESULTS: Mean stone size was 7.9 +/- 2.3 mm and mean time before ESWL after a first colic was 93.4 +/- 143.5 h. At 3 months, 3 patients were lost to follow-up. In 76.9% of patients stones were completely cleared and a further 3.3% harbored residual fragments < or =3 mm. Delay in treatment after a first colic correlated with subsequent time to stone clearance (p < 0.0001). Mean time to stone clearance in patients treated within 24h was 6.4 +/- 6.3 days compared with 16.0 +/- 17.8 days for those treated later (p = 0.008). Maximum stone diameter correlated with time to stone clearance (p = 0.031), but the degree of hydronephrosis did not. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid ESWL after a first onset of colic pain resulted in accelerated stone clearance independent of the degree of hydronephrosis but had no impact on the need for auxiliary procedures.     

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) monotherapy for stones in lower ureter.

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been accepted as the method of choice for most upper urinary tract calculi. However, in cases of stones in the lower ureter, ureteroscopic procedures have generally been preferred. Using the Dornier HM3 lithotriptor with modifications in the patient's position, we were able to successfully treat 155 unselected cases of lower ureteral calculi. The average stone size was 9.6 mm (range 5-23 mm). One hundred forty-three patients had stones located below the lower margin of the sacroiliac joint. These patients were placed in a supine position. The stones were visualized radiologically without use of a ureteral catheter in 78 percent of the patients; in 22 percent a ureteral catheter was inserted prior to ESWL to aid in stone localization. In 145 patients (94%) treatment was completed in one session; 10 patients (6%) required two sessions. Of the patients, 38 percent were free of stones one day after ESWL; 97 percent became stone free within three months, and only 3 patients required endoscopic manipulation, after ESWL. Twelve patients had stones in the midureter overlying the sacroileum. They were placed in the prone position, and the calculi were visualized with the aid of a ureteral catheter. All these patients became free of stones one month after treatment. There were no significant treatment-related complications except for bacteremia in 1 case. In view of the remarkable efficacy, negligible complication rate, and shorter hospital stay as compared to ureteroscopic stone manipulations, we recommend high energy ESWL as the primary monotherapy of mid and lower ureteral stones.     

Treatment of ureteral calculi by extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. UCLA experience

One hundred sixteen patients underwent extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for ureteral stones. In 108 patients, the stones were manipulated pre-ESWL whereas 8 patients underwent ESWL without prior stone manipulation. Ureteral lubrication using a 2% Xylocaine jelly solution greatly facilitated the retrograde advancement of the calculus or the passage of ureteral catheters alongside the stone. ESWL disintegrated all but 4 stones for an overall success rate of 96.6 per cent. It is considered that the combination of retrograde ureteral stone repositioning and ESWL is a highly successful alternative in the management of ureteral calculi.     

Rapid extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi in colic versus noncolic patients

OBJECTIVES: In delayed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment, increasing stone impaction is associated with delayed stone clearance. Whether colic patients treated by rapid ESWL have the same time to stone clearance as noncolic patients, which supports the thesis that stones in both groups are nonimpacted, has not been investigated yet, and was the objective of this study. METHODS: A total of 82 patients were prospectively enrolled and treated with piezoelectric ESWL for a solitary proximal ureteral stone. Of these, 56 patients experienced at least one colic episode compared with 26 noncolic patients. Hydronephrosis has been assessed with the use of ultrasound and intravenous urography (IVU). Time to stone clearance after the first ESWL and stone-free rates after a follow-up period of 3 mo were recorded. RESULTS: In colic and noncolic patients, mean stone size was 7.8mm (p=0.7). Ultrasound-detected hydronephrosis was present in 88% versus 39% (p<0.0001), whereas IVU-detected hydronephrosis was present in 60% versus 7.7% (p=0.0001). Mean number of impulses applied was 8000+/-4000 versus 6700+/-3400 (p=0.1). Mean time to stone clearance was 9.5+/-12.1 d versus 4.6+/-3.8 d (p=0.1). Colic and noncolic patients were considered as treatment success in 83% and 81% after 3 mo of follow-up (p=0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment outcome and time to stone clearance after rapid ESWL in colic patients compared with noncolic patients is comparable and independent of concomitant hydronephrosis. This finding suggests an absence of significant impaction in proximal ureteral stones treated within 24h after a first colic episode, enforcing the concept of performing rapid ESWL in patients harbouring proximal ureteral stones.     

Clinical experience with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy MFL-5000 for urinary stone

A Dornier MFL 5000, a new generation extracorporeal shock wave lithotripter, was installed in our hospital and the first Japanese clinical experience has been collected between July and November in 1989. We report our experience with the first 35 patients with 45 stones who were treated in 42 treatments using ESWL. We followed up 3 weeks. No invasive anesthesia was performed except 2 cases of epidural anesthesia. A double J catheter was installed in 2 patients, a ureteral catheter in 4 patients, and PNL was performed in 2 patients before ESWL. We did not use a PNL or a TUL in the postoperative treatment. In the 3 week followed up period, 29 patients (82.9%) were completely free from stone fragments. No serious complications were observed after ESWL. We conclude that the DORNIER MFL 5000 is effective for renal and ureteral stones without serious complications.