Elsevier

Urology

Volume 43, Issue 6, June 1994, Pages 776-781
Urology

In situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for primary ureteric calculi

https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(94)90133-3Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective. To determine the efficacy of the Lithostar lithotriptor for the in situ treatment of primary ureteric stones.

Methods. We reviewed, retrospectively, our experience with 283 patients with primary ureteric stones treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) using the Lithostar lithotriptor. No attempts were made to manipulate the stones. The majority of the patients were treated using only intravenous analgesia. Auxiliary measures were used in 84 patients (29.6%). There were 112 patients (39.6%) with upper, 53 (18.7%) with middle, and 118 (41.7%) with lower ureteric stones.

Results. A single ESWL session was needed for 200 patients (70.6%), two for 49 patients (17.3%), and more than two sessions for 34 patients (12%). Of the 248 patients who had adequate follow-up, 220 (88.7%) were stone free, 14 (5.65%) had some residual stone, while 14 (5.65%) patients failed to respond to the treatment. Patients' gender and body weight influenced the treatment and the clearance rate numerically without any statistical significance. The stone site was the most significant factor influencing the final result. Stones larger than 10 mm and the presence of hydronephrosis adversely affected the treatment.

Conclusions. In situ ESWL of ureteral stones with the Lithostar device is a convenient and efficient method of treating calculi within the whole length of the ureter without the need for any manipulation.

References (46)

  • H.G. Tiselius et al.

    Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of stones in the mid ureter

    J Urol

    (1989)
  • A.D. Jenkins et al.

    Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the prone position: treatment of stones in the distal ureter or anomalous kidney

    J Urol

    (1988)
  • W.G. Bowsher et al.

    Clinical experience using the Wolf Piezolith device at two British stone centers

    J Urol

    (1989)
  • M. Marberger et al.

    Painless piezoelectric extracorporeal lithotripsy

    J Urol

    (1988)
  • K.I.T. Tung et al.

    In situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for upper ureteral stones using the EDAP LT-01 lithotriptor

    J Urol

    (1990)
  • J. Graff et al.

    Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones: a retrospective analysis of 417 cases

    J Urol

    (1988)
  • R.K. Ahlawat et al.

    Treatment of ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy using the Lithostar device

    J Urol

    (1991)
  • J.M. Libby et al.

    The role of silicone ureteral stents in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of large renal calculi

    J Urol

    (1988)
  • N. Shore et al.

    Evolution of pre-treatment stenting and local anesthesia for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at a single university center

    J Urol

    (1990)
  • S.G. Pollard et al.

    Symptoms arising from Double-J ureteral stents

    J Urol

    (1988)
  • K. Bregg et al.

    Morbidity associated with indwelling internal ureteral stents after shock wave lithotripsy

    J Urol

    (1989)
  • H.A. Mosli et al.

    Vesicoureteral reflux in patients with double pigtail stents

    J Urol

    (1991)
  • S.C. Mueller et al.

    Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones: clinical experience and experimental findings

    J Urol

    (1986)
  • Cited by (53)

    • Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Impacted Upper Ureteral Stones: A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Stented and Non-stented Techniques

      2010, Urology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Several studies showed that stents may cause ureteral irritation, spasm, and constriction as well as impede stone clearance instead of facilitating it. The presence of a stent may thus be detrimental, necessitating a higher power index to achieve the desired effect, which may in turn increase the complication rate.19,20 We evaluated the stone-free rate in accordance with stone size with a 1-cm cut-off and analyzed the results.

    • Is There a Role for Tamsulosin in the Treatment of Distal Ureteral Stones of 7 mm or Less? Results of a Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

      2009, European Urology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Once a conservative approach proves to be unsuccessful, interventional treatment becomes necessary. After a period of conservative treatment, however, intervention is often inefficient or has a higher risk for complications due to stone impaction and the associated inflammatory reaction of the ureter [5,6]. The therapeutic potential of Ī±-blockers for ureteral stone disease has been investigated, prompted by the detection of Ī±-receptors in ureteral smooth muscle cells [7].

    • Rapid Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Treatment after a First Colic Episode Correlates with Accelerated Ureteral Stone Clearance

      2006, European Urology
      Citation Excerpt :

      The presence or degree of ultrasound detected hydronephrosis immediately before ESWL treatment did not have a significant impact on either time to stone clearance or treatment outcome. This finding has been reported in a recent study including colic and non-colic patients [14] and other studies showing no correlation of ureteral stone induced hydronephrosis with treatment success after ESWL [2,10,11,15]. Patients with complete obstructive ureteral stones, including a subgroup of 46 patients with proximal ureteral stones, have been retrospectively divided into three groups by Joshi et al.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text