Ultrasound follow up: Is an undetected spontaneous expulsion of stone fragments a sign of extracorporeal shock wave treatment failure in kidney stones?

INTRODUCTION: After extracorporeal lithotripsy (SWL), a spontaneous expulsion of fragments is often reported. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the presence of a stone free status or the presence of clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRFs, defined as "asymptomatic, noninfectious, ≤ 3 mm fragments") in people with undetected spontaneous expulsion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May and September 2017, we performed a total of 87 treatments. The device used was a Storz Medical Modulith® SLK. All the patients were treated in prone position to reduce respiratory movements and underwent sonography before and four to eight weeks after the treatment. An in line ultrasound targeting was possible with all the stones. People lost to follow up or with ureteral stones were excluded. Patients were divided in groups according to gender, previous treatments, stone diameter and position. RESULTS: We enrolled 73 patients. 57 patients had a single stone and 16 multiple stones. A mean number of 3044 shock waves was administered with a maximum average energy of 0.68mj/mmq. At follow up, 41 patients (56.2%) were found stone free or with CIRFs. The association between undetected expulsion and the presence of CIRFs is considered to be not statistically significant (p = 0.89). Among patients with CIRFs, 25/41 didn't report expulsion. Taking in account the groups our population was divided in, according to gender (p = 0.36), previous treatments (p = 0.44), stone diameter (p = 0.28) and stone position (p = 0.35), the association between undetected spontaneous expulsion and presence of CIRFs was never statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: An undetected spontaneous expulsion of stone fragments could not be considered a sign of SWL treatment failure. The association between undetected expulsion and presence of CIRFs is never statistically significant if gender of the patients, previous treatments, stone diameter and stone position are considered.

Comparison of an electromagnetic and an electrohydraulic lithotripter: Efficacy, pain and complications.

INTRODUCTION: We analyzed efficacy and complications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and analgesia requirement during the treatment in two groups of patients treated with different lithotripters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients treated were 189, 102 between September 2016 and April 2017 with HMT Lithotron® LITS 172, electrohydraulic, and 87 between May and September 2017 with Storz Medical Modulith® SLK, electromagnetic. The main differences between the lithotripters are: type of energy source, patient position, frequency and number of shock waves. All the patients underwent sonography before and four to eight weeks after the treatment. The targeting was sonographic for renal stones and X-ray for ureteral stones. All the patients received Ketorolac before the treatment with a supplement of Pethidine if needed. People lost to follow-up and with incomplete data were excluded. RESULTS: We enrolled 173 patients, 94 treated with the electrohydraulic lithotripter and 79 with the electromagnetic one. 43 patients (54%) in the electromagnetic group and 31 (33%) in the electrohydraulic group were stone free or presented clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRFs), defined as asymptomatic, noninfectious, ≤ 3 mm. The association between CIRFs and the kind of lithotripter was statistically significant (p = 0.004). An increased need for analgesia was found in 14.9% of patients in the electromagnetic group and in 81% of patients in the electrohydraulic group (p < 0.001). The access to emergency room (intractable pain, kidney failure, fever, Steintrasse) after the treatment was similar in the two groups (p = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: The best results in stones fragmentation and less analgesia requirement were demonstrated in the electromagnetic lithotripter group. No differences were demonstrated considering the need for emergency room after the treatment.

[Ultrasonographic diagnosis of penile fracture]. / Diagnosi ecografica di frattura del pene.

Penile fracture is a serious urological condition that requires surgical repair. We report a case of a penile fracture after traumatic event where sonography was performed and demonstrated the exact site of the rupture in the tunica albuginea and the urethral integrity.