nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.12.2024 | Research

Variation coefficient of stone density and renal cortical thickness: the parameters evaluating non-contrast computed tomography imaging for predict extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success

verfasst von: Yusuf Arikan, Mithat Eksi, Ubeyd Sungur, Mehmet Yoldas, Mehmet Zeynel Keskin, Zuhuratbaba Mh. Tevfik, Saglam Cd. No

Erschienen in: Urolithiasis | Ausgabe 1/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The stone density (SD) is not the same in all parts of the stone due to the heterogeneous nature of the stone and the shock wave (SW) passes through tissues of many different densities until it reaches the stone. These factors affect the success of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL). We aimed to evaluate the effect of the Variation Coefficient of Stone Density (VCSD) and Renal Cortical Tickness (RCT) on the success of ESWL. Between 2020 and 2023, 510 patients who underwent ESWL were divided into 2 groups treatment success (n:304) and treatment failure (n:206). Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT) imaging values of hydronephrosis degree of the kidney, stone location, stone volume (SV), stone-skin distance (SSD), SD, Standard deviation of Stone Density (SDSD), VCSD, RCT, Soft-Tissue Thickness (STT), Muscle Thickness (MT) were analyzed. VCSD value was obtained by dividing SDSD by SD. Along the SW, tissues were divided into three components: kidney (renal cortex), muscle and other soft tissues. RCT, MT and SSD were measured at three different angles (0°, 45°, and 90°) and these 3 lengths were averaged. In univariate analysis, Body Mass Index (BMI), SV, SD, VCSD, SSD, RCT and STT were demonstrated to affect ESWL success. In multivariate analysis, low BMI, SV, SD, RCT and large VCSD were significant independent predictors of ESWL success. Among these parameters, VCSD had the highest prediction accuracy, followed by SD, SV, RCT and BMI, respectively. This study demonstrated that VCSD value and RCT are predictive parameters in determining the treatment of patients with urinary calculi and selecting suitable ESWL candidates.

Talso M, Tefik T, Mantica G et al (2019) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: current knowledge and future perspectives. Minerva Urol Nefrol 71:365–372. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03415-5CrossRefPubMed

Geraghty RM, Davis NF, Tzelves L et al (2023) Best practice in Interventional Management of Urolithiasis: an update from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel for Urolithiasis 2022. Eur Urol Focus 9:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2022.06.014CrossRefPubMed

Wagenius M, Oddason K, Utter M et al (2022) Factors influencing stone-free rate of extracorporeal shock Wave lithotripsy (ESWL); a cohort study. Scand J Urol 56:237–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2022.2055137CrossRefPubMed

Ng CF, Luke S, Chiu PK, Teoh JY, Wong KT, Hou SS (2015) The effect of renal cortical thickness on the treatment outcomes of kidney stones treated with shockwave lithotripsy. Korean J Urol 56:379–385. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.5.379CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Yamashita S, Kohjimoto Y, Iguchi T et al (2017) Variation coefficient of Stone Density: a novel predictor of the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol 31:384–390. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0719CrossRefPubMed

Tran TY, McGillen K, Cone EB, Pareek G (2015) Triple D score is a reportable predictor of shockwave lithotripsy stone-free rates. J Endourol 29:226–230. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0212CrossRefPubMed

Sengupta S, Basu S, Ghosh K (2022) A prospective observational study on the predictability of Triple-D score versus Quadruple-D score in the success rate of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones 1–2 cm in diameter. Urol Ann 14:37–42. https://doi.org/10.4103/UA.UA_1_21CrossRefPubMed

Ozgor F, Tosun M, Kayali Y, Savun M, Binbay M, Tepeler A (2017) External validation and evaluation of reliability and validity of the Triple D score to Predict Stone-Free Status after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol 31:169–173. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0721CrossRefPubMed

Ghoneim IA, Ziada AM, El Katib SE (2005) Predictive factors of lower calyceal stone clearance after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): a focus on infundibulopelvic anatomy. Eur Urol 48:296–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.02.017CrossRefPubMed

10.

Popiolek M, Jendeberg J, Sundqvist P, Wagenius M, Lidén M (2023) Finding the optimal candidate for shock wave lithotripsy: external validation and comparison of five prediction models. Urolithiasis 51:66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-023-01444-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Oktay C, Çoraplı M, Tutuş A (2022) The usefulness of the Hounsfield unit and stone heterogeneity variation in predicting the shockwave lithotripsy outcome. Diagn Interv Radiol 28:187–192. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2022.20945CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Garg M, Johnson H, Lee SM, Rai BP, Somani B, Philip J (2023) Role of Hounsfield Unit in Predicting outcomes of Shock Wave lithotripsy for renal calculi: outcomes of a systematic review. Curr Urol Rep 24:173–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-023-01145-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Muter S, Abd Z, Saeed R (2022) Renal stone density on native CT-scan as a predictor of treatment outcomes in shock wave lithotripsy. J Med Life 15:1579–1584. https://doi.org/10.25122/jml-2022-0153CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Zarse CA, Hameed TA, Jackson ME et al (2007) CT visible internal stone structure, but not Hounsfield unit value, of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) calculi predicts lithotripsy fragility in vitro. Urol Res 35:201–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-007-0104-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Kim SC, Burns EK, Lingeman JE, Paterson RF, McAteer JA, Williams JC Jr (2007) Cystine Calculi: correlation of CT-visible structure, CT number, and stone morphology with fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Res 35:319–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-007-0117-1CrossRefPubMed

16.

Lee JY, Kim JH, Kang DH et al (2016) Stone heterogeneity index as the standard deviation of Hounsfield units: a novel predictor for shock-wave lithotripsy outcomes in ureter calculi. Sci Rep 6:23988. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23988CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Patel T, Kozakowski K, Hruby G, Gupta M (2009) Skin to stone distance is an independent predictor of stone-free status following shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol 23:1383–1385. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0394CrossRefPubMed

18.

Cleveland RO, Lifshitz DA, Connors BA, Evan AP, Willis LR, Crum LA (1998) In vivo pressure measurements of lithotripsy shock waves in pigs. Ultrasound Med Biol 24:293–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-5629(97)00270-6CrossRefPubMed

19.

Li G, McAteer JA, Williams JC Jr, Berwick ZC (2014) Effect of the body wall on lithotripter shock waves. J Endourol 28:446–452. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0662CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Hammad FT, Al Najjar A (2010) The effect of fat, muscle, and kidney on stone fragmentation by shockwave lithotripsy: an in vitro study. J Endourol 24:289–292. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0366CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hammad FT, Balakrishnan A (2010) The effect of fat and nonfat components of the skin-to-stone distance on shockwave lithotripsy outcome. J Endourol 24:1825–1829. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0685CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bandi G, Meiners RJ, Pickhardt PJ, Nakada SY (2009) Stone measurement by volumetric three-dimensional computed tomography for predicting the outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. BJU Int 103:524–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08069.xCrossRefPubMed

23.

Akkaş F, Culha MG, Ayten A et al (2022) A novel model using computed tomography parameters to predict shock wave lithotripsy success in ureteral stones at different locations. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) 46:114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2021.01.011CrossRefPubMed

24.

Ichiyanagi O, Fukuhara H, Kurokawa M et al (2019) Reinforcement of the Triple D score with simple addition of the intrarenal location for the prediction of the stone-free rate after shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones 10–20 mm in diameter. Int Urol Nephrol 51:239–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-018-02066-1CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Variation coefficient of stone density and renal cortical thickness: the parameters evaluating non-contrast computed tomography imaging for predict extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success
verfasst von: Yusuf Arikan
Mithat Eksi
Ubeyd Sungur
Mehmet Yoldas
Mehmet Zeynel Keskin
Zuhuratbaba Mh. Tevfik
Saglam Cd. No
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2024
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Urolithiasis / Ausgabe 1/2024
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Elektronische ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01561-8

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Variation coefficient of stone density and renal cortical thickness: the parameters evaluating non-contrast computed tomography imaging for predict extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Viel pflanzliche Nahrung, seltener Prostata-Ca.-Progression

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Hypertherme Chemotherapie bietet Chance auf Blasenerhalt

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Update Urologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2024

STUB1 exacerbates calcium oxalate-induced kidney injury by modulating reactive oxygen species-mediated cellular autophagy via regulating CFTR ubiquitination

Ureteral stricture formation after endoscopic removal of obstructing stones: could it be predicted with well-assessed radiological parameters?

Antegrade flexible ureteroscopy-assisted percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn calculi: a prospective randomized controlled study

Development of a new scoring system predicting medical expulsive therapy success on 4–10 mm distal ureteral stones: medical expulsive therapy stone score (METSS)

Deficient butyrate metabolism in the gut microbiome: an emerging risk factor for recurrent kidney stone disease

The fate of clinically insignificant residual fragments following retrograde intrarenal surgery and factors affecting spontaneous passage

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Viel pflanzliche Nahrung, seltener Prostata-Ca.-Progression

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Hypertherme Chemotherapie bietet Chance auf Blasenerhalt

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Update Urologie