Renal and Ureteral Stone Treatment by Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy
Main Article Content
Abstract
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWLs) results can be enhanced by the application of specific technological concepts and the selection of advantageous instances. This study's goal is to analyze the mechanisms of action of ESWL., indications and contraindications, success predictors, and consequences. ESWLs & "calculi" were used as topics in a search between Jan. 1984 and Oct. 2013 in the Pubmed® database. Only human-conducted studies with a sufficient level of evidence, including clinical trials or reviews/meta-analyses, were considered for inclusion. To optimize the seek for the ESWL results, many technical factors, including the kind of ESWLs apparatus, the intensity & frequency of the impulses, the connecting of patients to the device, the position of the stones, as well as the type of anesthesia, should be taken into consideration. Other patient-related variables, such as the density & size of the stone, skin-to-stone distance, anatomy of the excretory system, and renal anomalies, are also significant. The insertion of a routine double J stent before the procedure is not typically advised, nor is antibiotic prophylaxis required. For stones larger than 10 mm, alpha-blockers, in particular, tamsulosin, are helpful. Following ESWL, minor problems are possible but often respond favorably to therapeutic therapy. It is unclear how ESWL affects those with diabetes or hypertension.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
I. Torricelli FC, Danilovic A, Vicentini FC, Marchini GS, Srougi M, Mazzucchi E. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of renal and ureteral stones. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2015 Jan-Feb;61(1):65-71. doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.61.01.065. Epub 2015 Jan 1. PMID: 25909212.
II. Alanee S, Ugarte R, Monga M. The effectiveness of shock wave lithotripters: a case matched comparison. J Urol. 2010;184:2364-7.
III. Lambert EH, Walsh R, Moreno MW, Gupta M. Effect of escalating versus fixed voltage treatment on stone comminution and renal injury during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol. 2010;183:580-4.
IV. Rassweiler JJ, Knoll T, Kohrmann KU, McAteer JA, Lingeman JE, Cleveland RO et al. Shock wave technology and application: an update. Eur Urol. 2011;59:784-96.
V. Li K, Lin T, Zhang C, Fan X, Xu K, Bi L, et al. Optimal frequency of shock wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Urol. 2013;190:1260-7.
VI. Mazzucchi E, Brito AH, Danilovic A, Ebaid GX, Chedid Neto E, Azevedo JR, et al. Comparison between two shock wave regimens using frequencies of 60 and 90 impulses per minute for urinary stones. Clinics. 2010;65:961-5.
VII. Abood, Mohammed Khalid, Wasan Abdul Kareem Abass, and Kadhim Ali Kadhim. "Comparative Study for the Effect of Tamsulosin on Biomarkers between Renal and Urethral Stone Lithotripsy." International Journal of Pharma Sciences and Research (IJPSR), Vol 6, no. 10 (Oct 2015): 1274-1287
VIII. Pishchalnikov YA, Neucks JS, VonDerHaar RJ, Pishchalnikova IV, Williams JC Jr., McAteer JA. Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shock wave energy. J Urol. 2006;176:2706-10.
IX. Jain A, Shah TK. Effect of air bubbles in the coupling medium on efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1680-6.
X. Li G, Williams JC Jr, Pishchalnikov YA, Liu Z, McAteer JA. Size and location of defects at the coupling interface affect lithotripter performance. BJU Int. 2012;110:E871-7.
XI. El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O, Sheir KZ. A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomography. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1688-93.
XII. Warner MA, Warner ME, Buck CF, Segura JW. Clinical efficacy of high frequency jet ventilation during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteral calculi: a comparison with conventional mechanical ventilation. J Urol. 1988; 139: 486-7.
XIII. Cormack JR, Hui R, Olive D, Said S. Comparison of two ventilation techniques during general anesthesia for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: high-frequency jet ventilation versus spontaneous ventilation with a laryngeal mask airway. Urology. 2007;70:7-10.
XIV. Abood, Mohammed Khalid, and Ammar Fadil. "Effect of Tamsulosin on Biomarkers after Ureteral Stones Lithotripsy." Al Mustansiriyah Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 15, no. 2 (2015): 13-20.
XV. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, Nyhuis AW, Woods JR. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol. 1994;151:663-7.
XVI. Lindqvist K, Holmberg G, Peeker R, Grenabo L. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy as primary treatment for ureteric stones: a retrospective study comparing two different treatment strategies. Scand J Urol. 2006;40:113-8.
XVII. Picozzi SC, Ricci C, Gaeta M, Casellato S, Stubinski R, Ratti D, et al. Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients. Urol Res. 2012;40:725-31.
XVIII. Streem SB. Contemporary clinical practice of shock wave lithotripsy: a reevaluation of contraindications. J Urol. 1997;157:1197-203.
XIX. Al-Ansari A, As-Sadiq K, Al-Said S, Younis N, Jaleel OA, Shokeir AA. Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol. 2006;38:63-7.
XX. Perks AE, Schuler TD, Lee J, Ghiculete D, Chung DG, D’A Honey RJ, et al. Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urology. 2008;72:765-9.
XXI. Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, Ray AA, Honey RJ, Pace KT. A clinical nomogram to predict the successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol. 2011;186:556-62.
XXII. Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, Asakura H, Miyajima A, Oya M, et al. Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2006;176:1453-6.
XXIII. Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Chandhoke P, Lingeman JE, et al. Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol. 1998;12:113-9.
XXIV. Tuckey J, Devasia A, Murthy L, Ramsden P, Thomas D. Is there a simpler method for predicting lower pole stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy than measuring infundibulopelvic angle? J Endourol. 2000;14:475-8.
XXV. Sampaio FJ, DAnunciacao AL, Silva EC. Comparative follow-up of patients with acute and obtuse infundibulum-pelvic angle submitted to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower caliceal stones: preliminary report and proposed study design. J Endourol. 1997;11:157-61.
XXVI. Kumar S, Sakthivel A, Chacko KN, Kekre NS, Ganesh G. Shock wave lithotripsy in solitary functioning kidneys: is prophylactic stenting necessary? Urol Int. 2006;77:179-81.
XXVII. Shen P, Jiang M, Yang J, Li X, Li Y, Wei W, et al. Use of ureteral stent in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for upper urinary calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2011;186:1328-35.
XXVIII. Vicentini FC, Mazzucchi E, Brito AH, Chedid Neto EA, Danilovic A, Srougi M. Adjuvant tamsulosin or nifedipine after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: a double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Urology. 2011;78:1016-21.
XXIX. Sofras F, Karayannis A, Kostakopoulos A, Delakas D, Kastriotis J, Dimopoulos C. Methodology, results and complications in 2000 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy procedures. BJU Int. 1988;61:9-13.
XXX. Salem S, Mehrsai A, Zartab H, Shahdadi N, Pourmand G. Complications and outcomes following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective study of 3.241 patients. Urol Res. 2010;38:135-42.
XXXI. Razvi H, Fuller A, Nott L, Méndez-Probst CE, Leistner R, Foell K, et al. Risk factors for perinephric hematoma formation after shockwave lithotripsy: a matched case-control analysis. J Endourol. 2012;26:1478-82.
XXXII. Chew BH, Zavaglia B, Sutton C, Masson RK, Chan SH, Hamidizadeh R, et al. Twenty-year prevalence of diabetes mellitus and hypertension in patients receiving shock-wave lithotripsy for urolithiasis. BJU Int. 2012; 109:444-9.
XXXIII. Krambeck AE, Rule AD, Li X, Bergstralh EJ, Gettman MT, Lieske JC. Shock wave lithotripsy is not predictive of hypertension among community stone formers at long-term followup. J Urol. 2011;185:164-9.
XXXIV. Barbosa PV, Makhlouf AA, Thorner D, Ugarte R, Monga M. Shock wave lithotripsy associated with greater prevalence of hypertension. Urology. 2011;78:22-5.
XXXV. De Cógáin M, Krambeck AE, Rule AD, Li X, Bergstralh EJ, Gettman MT, et El. Shock wave lithotripsy and diabetes mellitus: a population-based cohort study. Urology. 2012;79:298-302.
XXXVI. El-Assmy A, el-Nahas AR, Hekal IA, Badran M, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ. Long-term effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on renal function: our experience with 156 patients with solitary kidney. J Urol. 2008;179:2229-32.