Prediction of shockwave failure in patients with urinary tract stones

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 88-92

  Kim, Fernando J ^a   Rice, Kevin R ^b  

^a DENVER HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Renal calculi; Shockwave lithotripsy; Urolithiasis

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL FEATURE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DEVICE; EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY; HUMAN; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT INDICATION; URINARY DIVERSION; UROLITHIASIS; LITHOTRIPSY; METHODOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RISK FACTOR;

HUMANS; LITHOTRIPSY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RISK FACTORS; TREATMENT FAILURE; URINARY CALCULI;

EID: 33744976858     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mou.0000193373.22318.68     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Chaussy C, Schmiedt E. Shock wave treatment for stones in the upper urinary tract. Urol Clin North Am 1983; 10:743-750.
2. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, et al. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: A critical analysis. J Urol 1994; 151:663-667.
3. Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL, et al. Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: Impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol 1998; 12:113-119.
4. Sumino Y, Mimata H, Tasaki, et al. Predictors of lower pole renal stone clearance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2002; 168:1344-1347.
5. Sorensen CM, Chandhoke PS. Is lower pole caliceal anatomy predictive of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success for primary lower pole kidney stones? J Urol 2002; 168:2377-2383.
6. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, et al. Lower pole I: A prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis: Initial results. J Urol 2001; 166:2072-2080.
7. Brownlee N, Foster M, Griffith DP, et al. Controlled inversion therapy: an adjunct to the elimination of gravity-dependent fragments following extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Urol 1990; 143:1096-1098.
8. Rodrigues Netto N Jr, Claro JF, Cortado PL, et al. Adjunct controlled inversion therapy following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole caliceal stones. J Urol 1991; 146:953-954.
9. Honey RJD'A, Luymes J, Weir MJ, et al. Mechanical percussion inversion can result in relocation of lower pole stone fragments after shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole caliceal stones. Urology 2000; 55:204-206.
10. Pace KT, Tariq N, Dyer SJ, et al. Mechanical percussion, inversion and diuresis for residual lower pole fragments after shock wave lithotripsy: A prospective, single blind, randomized controlled trial. J Urol 2001; 166:2065-2071.
11. Chiong E, Tay Poh Hwee S, Esuvaranathan K, et al. Randomized controlled study of mechanical percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy to assist passage of lower pole renal calculi after shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2005; 65:1070-1074.
12. Delakas D, Karyotis I, Mavromanolakis E, et al. Independent predictors of failure of shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones employing a second-generation lithotripter. J Endourol 2003; 17:201-205.
13. Lingeman JE, Newman D, Mertz JHO, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Methodist Hospital of Indiana experience. J Urol 1986; 135:1134-1137.
14. Nadler RB, Stern JA, Rademaker AW, et al. Coronal imaging to assess urinary tract stone size. J Urol 2004; 172:962-964. Reports the value of the utilization of three-dimensional reconstruction software in addition to axial CT images in order more accurately assess stone burden pre-operatively.
15. Dretler SP. Stone fragility: A new therapeutic distinction. J Urol 1988; 139:1124-1127.
16. Pittomvils G, Vandeursen H, Wevers M, et al. The influence of internal stone structure upon the fracture behavior of urinary calculi. Ultrasound Med Biol 1994; 20:803-810.
17. Wang YH, Grenabo L, Hedelin H, et al. Analysis of stone fragility in vitro and in vivo with piezoelectric shock waves using the EDAP LT 01. J Urol 1993; 149:699-702.
18. Bon D, Dore B, Irani J, et al. Radiographic prognostic criteria for extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: A study of 485 patients. Urology 1996; 48:556-561.
19. Ramakumar S, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ, et al. Prediction of stone composition from plain radiographs: A prospective study. J Endourol 1999; 13:397-401.
20. Mostafavi MR, Ernst RD, Saltzman B. Accurate determination of chemical composition of urinary calculi by spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 1998; 159:673-675.
21. Saw KC, McAteer JA, Fineberg NS, et al. Calcium stone fragility is predicted by helical CT attenuation values. J Endourol 2000; 14:465-468.
22. Saw KC, McAteer JA, Monga AG, et al. Helical CT of urinary calculi: effect of stone composition, stone size, and scan collimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175:329-332.
23. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Fracchia JA. Houndsfield units on computerized tomography predict stone-free rates after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2003; 169:1679-1681.
24. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Fracchia JA, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Houndsfield units. Urology 2005; 65:33-36. Reports the value of stone HUs as well as BMI in predicting outcome after SWL. Even proposes an equation that integrates these two factors into one predictive figure.
25. Gupta NP, Ansari MS, Mukhopadhyay S, et al. Role of computed tomography with no contrast medium enhancement in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. Br J Urol 2005; 95:1285-1288. Reports a clear association between increasing HUs and number of SWL treatments necessary to achieve a successful outcome. It is likely that the results of studies like this will change the way in which stone patients are evaluated pre-operatively.
26. El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Sheir KZ, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of upper urinary tract calculi in patients with cystectomy and urinary diversion. Urology 2005; 66:510-513.
27. Vallancien G, Munoz IR, Daudon M, et al. Relationship between the frequency of piezoelectric shock waves and the quality of stone fragmentation. In vitro study and clinical implication. Eur Urol 1989; 16:41-44.
28. Weir MJ, Tariq N, Honey RJ. Shockwave frequency affects fragmentation in a kidney stone model. J Endourol 2000; 14:547-550.
29. Choi MJ, Coleman AJ, Saunders JE. The influence of fluid properties and pulse amplitude on bubble dynamics in the field of a shock wave lithotripter. Phys Med Biol 1988; 38:1561-1573.
30. Delius M, Enders G, Xuan ZR, et al. Biological effects of shock waves: Kidney damage by shock waves in dogs - dose dependence. Ultrasound Med Biol 1988; 14:117-122.
31. Pace KT, Ghiculete D, Harju M. Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: A randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol 2005; 174:595-599. The results of this study demonstrate a clear therapeutic advantage when using the slower shockwave delivery rate. This approach results in increased efficacy and likely minimizes adverse effects by decreasing the number of shocks necessary to achieve a successful outcome.
32. Madbouly K, El-Tiraifi AM, Talic RF, et al. Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: A prospective randomized study. J Urol 2003; 173:127-130.
33. Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJ, de Kort VJW, et al. Efficacy of second generation lithotriptors: a multicenter comparative study of 2206 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatments with the Siemens Lithostar, Dornier HM4, Wolf Piezolith 2300, Direx Tripter X-1 and Breakstone lithotriptors. J Urol 1992; 148:1052-1056.
34. McLornan CF, Thompson TJ, Tolley DA. Comparison of piezolelectric lithotriptors using matched pair analysis. J Urol 2004; 172:1887-1891. Reports that despite a multitude of modifications, the piezoelectric lithotripter design continues to yield disappointing results.
35. Gerber R, Studer U, Danuser H. Is never always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations 2005 Jun; 173 (6):2013-2016. This study concluded that the HM3 lithotriptor success rate for treatement of caliceal and renal pelvic stones was superior than the LSP ans SLX machines, resulting in fewer complications and re-treatments.
36. Sheir KZ, Ghoneim, El-Sheikh AM. Use of synchronous twin pulse technique to improve the efficacy of SWL. Preliminary results of an experimental study. J Urol 2000; 163 (Suppl) (340, A1507).
37. Sheir KZ, El-Diasty TA, Ismail AM. Evaluation of a synchronous twin-pulse technique for shock wave lithotripsy: The first prospective clinical study. Br J Urol 2005; 95:389-393. A very interesting description of a new method of delivering SWL. This technique seems to be effective in minimizing sources of treatment failure for conventional SWL.
38. Eisenmenger W. The mechanisms of stone fragmentation in ESWL. Ultrasound Med Biol 2001; 27:683-693.
39. Zhu S, Cocks FH, Zhong P. The role of stress waves and cavitation in stone comminution in shock wave lithotripsy. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28:661-671.
40. Li CC, Finley DS, Clayman RV, et al. Effect of urine specific gravity on effectiveness of shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol 2005; 19:167-169.