Evaluation of emergency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) for ureteral calculi during acute renal colic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2002 to March 2007, 108 patients were treated by ESWL for obstructing ureteral stones causing acute renal colic. ESWL was performed within 24 hours of the onset of renal colic. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 39.5 years (11-72 years). Male/female ratio was 85/23. Mean stone size was 8.45 mm (4-20 mm). They were located in the pelvic (n = 53), iliac (n = 28) or lumbar (n = 27) region. Fragmentation after a single session was complete in 56 patients (52 percent), incomplete in 28 (26 percent), and absent in 24 (22 percent). Patients presenting incomplete fragmentation underwent a second (n = 28) or even a third session (n = 11). Of the 24 patients in whom ESWL had no impact on the stone, 21 underwent ureteroscopy, and in one case open ureterolithotomy for a patient with a hard 17 mm stone, while spontaneous passage occurred in two patients with small stones. CONCLUSION: Emergency ESWL for obstructing ureteral stones has a satisfactory success rate and very low morbidity. The stone-free rate of retreating ureteral calculi with ESWL decreases significantly after failed initial treatment. Stone size may be the main predictive factor for retreatment. We suggest that no more than 3 treatments should be given for a particular stone due to minimal improvement in the subsequent cumulative treatment success rate.

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction

OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi with respect to patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND MHETODS: This is a prospective study where a total of 212 patients with solitary, radiopaque distal ureteral calculi were treated with ESWL (n = 92) using Dornier lithotriptor S (MedTech Europe GmbH) or URS (n = 120). Patient and stone characteristics, treatment parameters, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction were assessed for each group. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable in regard to patient age, sex, stone size, and side of treatment. The stone-free status for ESWL and URS at 3 months was 81.5 percent and 97.5 percent, respectively (p < 0.0001). In addition, 88 percent of patients who underwent ESWL versus 20 percent who underwent URS were discharged home the day of procedure. Minor complications occurred in 3.3 percent and 8.3 percent of the ESWL and URS groups, respectively (p = 0.127). No ureteral perforation or stricture occurred in the URS group. Postoperative flank pain and dysuria were more severe in the URS than ESWL group, although the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.16). Patient satisfaction was high for both groups, including 94 percent for URS and 80 percent for ESWL (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: URS is more effective than ESWL for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi. ESWL was more often performed on an outpatient basis, and showed a trend towards less flank pain and dysuria, fewer complications and quicker convalescence. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher for URS according to the questionnaire used in this study.