Impact of Percutaneous Nephrostomy on the Efficacy of in Situ Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Upper Ureteral Stones
Vol. 19 No. 04 (2022),
Purpose: To investigate whether a Percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) has any impact on the success rate of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and to estimate the probability of stone-free in SWL patients with upper ureter stones.
Materials and Methods: Overall, 236 patients who underwent SWL for upper ureter stones between 2015 and 2019 were evaluated. Forty-nine patients who underwent PCN during SWL were identified. Medical data of the patients were retrospectively reviewed, and possible prognostic features were evaluated.
Results: Out of all patients, 147 patients were selected through propensity score matching. There were no significant differences between the PCN and no PCN groups, except for a lower stone-free rate (55.1% vs. 74.5%, p = .018) and one-session success rate (24.5% vs. 50.0%, p = .003) in the PCN group. In univariate analysis, a younger age, the female sex, a smaller size of stone, lower mean stone density (MSD), and absence of PCN were positive predictive factors of being stone-free in patients who underwent SWL. In multivariate analysis, a smaller size, lower MSD, and absence of PCN were positive predictive factors of being stone-free in patients who underwent SWL.
Conclusion: Stone size, MSD, and PCN were prognostic factors that influence the outcome of SWL. The presence of PCN during SWL is associated with adverse success rates in patients with upper ureter stones.
- percutaneous nephrostomy; shockwave lithotripsy; stents; ureter; urinary calculi
How to Cite
2. Geraghty RM, Proietti S, Traxer O, Archer M, Somani BK. Worldwide Impact of Warmer Seasons on the Incidence of Renal Colic and Kidney Stone Disease: Evidence from a Systematic Review of Literature. J Endourol. 2017;31:729-35.
3. Cho ST, Jung SI, Myung SC, Kim TH. Correlation of metabolic syndrome with urinary stone composition. Int J Urol. 2013;20:208-13.
4. Holmlund D. On medical treatment for ureteral stone expulsion. Scand J Urol. 2018;52:94-100.
5. Pearle MS, Pierce HL, Miller GL, et al. Optimal method of urgent decompression of the collecting system for obstruction and infection due to ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1998;160:1260-4.
6. Holmes SA, Whitfield HN. The current status of lithotripsy. Br J Urol. 1991;68:337-44.
7. Yang SW, Hyon YK, Na HS, et al. Machine learning prediction of stone-free success in patients with urinary stone after treatment of shock wave lithotripsy. BMC Urol. 2020;20:88.
8. Cone EB, Eisner BH, Ursiny M, Pareek G. Cost-effectiveness comparison of renal calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2014;28:639-43.
9. Cone EB, Pareek G, Ursiny M, Eisner B. Cost-effectiveness comparison of ureteral calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy. World J Urol. 2017;35:161-6.
10. Sfoungaristos S, Polimeros N, Kavouras A, Perimenis P. Stenting or not prior to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? Results of a prospective randomized study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2012;44:731-7.
11. Ozkan B, Dogan C, Can GE, Tansu N, Erozenci A, Onal B. Does ureteral stenting matter for stone size? A retrospective analyses of 1361 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. Cent European J Urol. 2015;68:358-64.
12. Nguyen DP, Hnilicka S, Kiss B, Seiler R, Thalmann GN, Roth B. Optimization of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Delivery Rates Achieves Excellent Outcomes for Ureteral Stones: Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial. J Urol. 2015;194:418-23.
13. Augustin H. Prediction of stone-free rate after ESWL. Eur Urol. 2007;52:318-20.
14. Choi JW, Song PH, Kim HT. Predictive factors of the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Korean J Urol. 2012;53:424-30.
15. Takahara K, Ibuki N, Inamoto T, Nomi H, Ubai T, Azuma H. Predictors of success for stone fragmentation and stone-free rate after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones. Urol J. 2012;9:549-52.
16. Kang HW, Cho KS, Ham WS, et al. Predictive factors and treatment outcomes of Steinstrasse following shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: A Bayesian regression model analysis. Investig Clin Urol. 2018;59:112-8.
17. Chang KD, Lee JY, Park SY, Kang DH, Lee HH, Cho KS. Impact of Pretreatment Hydronephrosis on the Success Rate of Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Patients with Ureteral Stone. Yonsei Med J. 2017;58:1000-5.
18. Mugiya S, Ito T, Maruyama S, Hadano S, Nagae H. Endoscopic features of impacted ureteral stones. J Urol. 2004;171:89-91.
19. Austin PC. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J. 2009;51:171-84.
20. Argyropoulos AN, Tolley DA. Ureteric stents compromise stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stones: results of a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2009;103:76-80.
21. Ghoneim IA, El-Ghoneimy MN, El-Naggar AE, Hammoud KM, El-Gammal MY, Morsi AA. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in impacted upper ureteral stones: a prospective randomized comparison between stented and non-stented techniques. Urology. 2010;75:45-50.
22. Pettenati C, El Fegoun AB, Hupertan V, Dominique S, Ravery V. Double J stent reduces the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of lumbar ureteral stones. Cent European J Urol. 2013;66:309-13.
23. Middela S, Papadopoulos G, Srirangam S, Rao P. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones: do decompression tubes matter? Urology. 2010;76:821-5.
24. Joshi HB, Obadeyi OO, Rao PN. A comparative analysis of nephrostomy, JJ stent and urgent in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for obstructing ureteric stones. BJU Int. 1999;84:264-9.
25. Bichler KH, Eipper E, Naber K, Braun V, Zimmermann R, Lahme S. Urinary infection stones. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2002;19:488-98.
26. Hausegger KA, Portugaller HR. Percutaneous nephrostomy and antegrade ureteral stenting: technique-indications-complications. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:2016-30.
- Abstract Viewed: 0 times
- 6762/pdf Downloaded: 0 times