Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 109-113

  Madaan, Sanjeev ^a   Joyce, Adrian D ^a  

^a ST JAMES S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; Limitations; Shock wave lithotripsy; Urolithiasis

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EXTRACORPOREAL LITHOTRIPSY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; KIDNEY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NEPHROLITHIASIS; NOMOGRAM; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT IDENTIFICATION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; THERAPY EFFECT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETER STONE;

HUMANS; KIDNEY CALCULI; LITHOTRIPSY; TREATMENT FAILURE; URETERAL CALCULI;

EID: 33846862631     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32802b70bc     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Chaussy C, Schmiedt E. Shock wave treatment for stones in the upper urinary tract. Urol Clin North Am 1983; 10:743-750.
2. Ng CF, Thompson TJ, McLornan L, Tolley DA. Single-center experience using three shockwave lithotripters with different generator designs in management of urinary calculi. J Endourol 2006; 20:1-8.
3. Skolarikos A, Alivizatos G, de la Rosette J. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 25 years later: complications and their prevention. Eur Urol 2006; 50:981-990. A comprehensive review of the complications of ESWL.
4. Krambeck AE, Gettman MT, Rohlinger AL, et al. Diabetes mellitus and hypertension associated with shock wave lithotripsy of renal and proximal ureteral stones at 19 years of follow-up. J Urol 2006; 175:1742-1747. A single-centre, case-controlled, retrospective study that raised concerns about the long-term effects of ESWL.
5. Lingeman JE, Newman D, Mertz JH, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the Methodist Hospital of Indiana experience. J Urol 1986; 135:1134-1137.
6. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, et al. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 1994; 151:663-667.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, et al. J Urol 2005; 173:2005-2009.
10. Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, et al. Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2006; 176 (4 Pt 1):1453-1456.
11. Al-Ansari A, As-Sadiq K, Al-Said S, et al. Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol 2006; 38:63-67.
12. Delakas D, Karyotis I, DaskalopoulosG, et al. Independent predictors of failure of shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones employing a second-generation lithotripter. J Endourol 2003; 17:201-205.
13. Nabi G, Baldo O, Cartledge J, et al. The impact of the Dornier Compact Delta lithotriptor on the management of primary ureteric calculi. Eur Urol 2003; 44:482-486.
14. Gomha MA, Sheir KZ, Showky S, et al. Can we improve the prediction of stone-free status after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? A neural network or a statistical model? J Urol 2004; 172:175-179.
15. Seitz C, Fajkovic H, Waldert M, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones: Does the presence and degree of hydronephrosis affect success? Eur Urol 2006; 49:378-383.
16. Honeck P, Hacker A, Alken P, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective study. Urol Res 2006; 34:190-192. A prospective, nonrandomized study showing that ureteroscopy had a significant better success rate compared with ESWL for distal ureteral stones.
17. Dretler SP. Stone fragility-a new therapeutic distinction. J Urol 1988; 139:1124-1127.
18. Pittomvils G, Vandeursen H, Wevers M, et al. The influence of internal stone structure upon the fracture behaviour of urinary calculi. Ultrasound Med Biol 1994; 20:803-810.
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. Zarse CA, McAteer JA, Sommer AJ, et al. Nondestructive analysis of urinary calculi using micro computed tomography. BMC Urol 2004; 4:15.
21. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Fracchia JA. Hounsfield units on computerized tomography predict stone-free rates after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2003; 169:1679-1681.
22. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Panagopoulos G, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield units. Urology 2005; 65:33-36.
23. Wang LJ, Wong YC, Chuang CK, et al. Predictions of outcomes of renal stones after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy from stone characteristics determined by unenhanced helical computed tomography: a multivariate analysis. Eur Radiol 2005; 15:2238-2243.
24. Gupta NP, Ansari MS, Kesarvani P, 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 Int 2005; 95:1285-1288.
25. Yoshida S, Hayashi T, Ikeda J, et al. Role of volume and attenuation value histogram of urinary stone on noncontrast helical computed tomography as predictor of fragility by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2006; 68:33-37. Evaluated the use of mean attenuation value, the total stone volume and the hump existence on the attenuation value histogram to predict the stone fragility by ESWL.
26. Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT Jr, Nakada SY. Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology 2005; 66:941-944. A retrospective study which for the first time used SSD to predict stone fragmentation with ESWL.
27. Vallancien G, Munoz R, Borghi M, et al. Relationship between the frequency of piezoelectric shock waves and the quality of renal stone fragmentation. In vitro study and clinical implications. Eur Urol 1989; 16:41-44.
28. Paterson RF, Lifshitz DA, Lingeman JE, et al. Stone fragmentation during shock wave lithotripsy is improved by slowing the shock wave rate: studies with a new animal model. J Urol 2002; 168:2211-2215.
29. Madbouly K, El-Tiraifi AM, Seida M, et al. Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 2005; 173:127-130.
30. Pace KT, Ghiculete D, Harju M, Honey RJ, University of Toronto Lithotripsy Associates. Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol 2005; 174:595-599.
31. Chacko J, Moore M, Sankey N, Chandhoke PS. Does a slower treatment rate impact the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary kidney or ureteral stones? J Urol 2006; 175:1370-1373.
32. Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar M, et al. Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study. Urology 2005; 66:1160-1164.
33. Maloney ME, Marguet CG, Zhou Y, et al. Progressive increase of lithotripter output produces better in-vivo stone comminution. J Endourol 2006; 20:603-606. First in-vivo study showing the advantage of dose escalation strategy in improving stone fragmentation with ESWL.
34. Zhou Y, Cocks FH, Preminger GM, Zhong P. The effect of treatment strategy on stone comminution efficiency in shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2004; 172:349-354.
35. Sheir KZ, El-Sheikh AM, Ghoneim MA. Synchronous twin-pulse technique to improve efficacy of SWL: preliminary results of an experimental study. J Endourol 2001; 15:965-974.
36. 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 Int 2005; 95:389-393. A prospective clinical trial of twinhead lithotripter showing that it is safe and more effective.