Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can ureteral wall thickness (UWT) be used as a potential parameter for decision-making in uncomplicated distal ureteral stones 5–10 mm in size? A prospective study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the correlation between ureteral wall thickness (UWT) and stone passage (SP) and its cut-off value in distal uncomplicated ureteral stones.

Patients and methods

In the prospective study from January 2019 to January 2020 at a tertiary care hospital, we reviewed 212 patients aged above 18 years with single, symptomatic, radiopaque, and distal ureteric stone sized 5–10 mm, who were treated with MET (Silodosin 8 mg once daily) until SP or a maximum of 4 weeks. There were 2 groups: responders and non-responders. Demographic data of the patients and all stone radiological parameters including stone size, laterality, density, UWT, the diameter of the ureter proximal to the stone (PUD), and the degree of hydronephrosis were recorded and compared between the 2 groups.

Results

There were 126 (59.4%) in the responder group and 86 (40.6%) in the non-responder group. On univariate analysis, gender, stone density, stone size, PUD, UWT, and the degree of hydronephrosis were significant factors for stone passage. However, using multivariate analysis, only UWT and the degree of hydronephrosis were significant. ROC analysis showed that 3.75 mm is the cut-off value for UWT, with 86% and 87.3% sensitivity and specificity, respectively.

Conclusions

UWT and hydronephrosis can be used as potential predictors for SP and can help with decision-making in patients with uncomplicated 5–10 mm lower ureteric stones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Chart 1
Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yoshida T, Inoue T, Taguchi M, Omura N, Kinoshita H, Matsuda T (2019) Ureteral wall thickness as a significant factor in predicting spontaneous passage of ureteral stones of ≤ 10 mm: a preliminary report. World J Urol 37:913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmed AF, Al-Sayed AY (2010) Tamsulosin versus Alfuzosin in the treatment of patients with distal ureteral stones: prospective, randomized, comparative study. Korean J Urol 51:193–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART II. J Urol 196:1161–1169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kobayashi T, Nishizawa K, Watanabe J, Ogura K (2003) Clinical characteristics of ureteral calculi detected by nonenhanced computerized tomography after unclear results of plain radiography and ultrasonography. J Urol 170(799):802

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sahin C, Eryildirim B, Kafkasli A et al (2015) Predictive parameters for medical expulsive therapy in ureteral stones: a critical evaluation. Urolithiasis 43:271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Seitz C, Tanovic E, Kikic Z, Fajkovic H (2007) Impact of stone size, location, composition, impaction, and hydronephrosis on the efficacy of holmium:YAG-laser ureterolithotripsy. Eur Urol 52:1751–1759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaussy CG, Fuchs GJ (1989) Current state and future developments of noninvasive treatment of human urinary stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 141:782–789

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sarica K, Kafkasli A, Yazici Ö, Sabuncu K, Cetinel C, Narter F (2015) Ureteral wall thickness at the impacted ureteral stone site: a critical predictor for success rates after SWL. Urolithiasis 43:83–88

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Yoshida T, Inoue T, Omura N et al (2017) Ureteral wall thickness as a preoperative indicator of impacted stones in patients with ureteral stones undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Urology 106:45–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Turk C, Knoll T, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Chapple C, McClinton S (2017) European Association of Urology, Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureterolithiasis: the EAU Recommendations in 2016. Eur Urol 71:504–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bensalah K, Pearle M, Lotan Y (2008) Cost-effectiveness of medical expulsive therapy using alpha-blockers for the treatment of distal ureteral stones. Eur Urol 53:411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ito H, Kawahara T, Terao H, Ogawa T, Yao M, Kubota Y et al (2012) Predictive value of attenuation coefficients measured as Hounsfield units on noncontrast computed tomography during flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy: a singlecenter experience. J Endourol 26:1125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Celik S, Bozkurt O, Kaya FG, Egriboyun S, Demir O, Secil M et al (2015) Evaluation of computed tomography findings for success prediction after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary tract stone disease. Int Urol Nephrol 47:69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Özbir S, Can O, Atalay HA, Canat HL, Çakır S, Ötünçtemur A (2019) Formula for predicting the impaction of ureteral stones. Urolithiasis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01152-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Elibol O, Safak KY, Buz A, Eryildirim B, Erdem K, Sarica K (2017) Radiological noninvasive assessment of ureteral stone impaction into the ureteric wall: a critical evaluation with objective radiological parameters. Investig Clin Urol 58(5):339–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tuerxun A, Batuer A, Erturhan S, Eryildirim B, Camur E, Sarica K (2017) Impaction and prediction: does ureteral wall thickness affect the success of medical expulsive therapy in pediatric ureteral stones? Urol Int 98:436–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Coll DM, Varanelli MJ, Smith RC (2002) Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:101–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee SR, Jeon HG, Park DS, Choi YD (2012) Longitudinal stone diameter on coronal reconstruction of computed tomography as a predictor of ureteral stone expulsion in medical expulsive therapy. Urology 80:784–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Legemate JD, Wijnstok NJ, Matsuda T et al (2017) Characteristics and outcomes of ureteroscopic treatment in 2650 patients with impacted ureteral stones. World J Urol 35(10):1497–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Celik S, Akdeniz F, Afsar-Yildirim M, Bozkurt O, Gursoy-Bulut M, Mehmet LH, Omer D (2017) Computed tomography findings predicting the success of silodosin for medical expulsive therapy of ureteral stones. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 33:290–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tran TY, Bamberger JN, Blum KA, Parkhomenko E, Thai J, Chandhoke RA, Gupta M (2019) Predicting the impacted ureteral stone with computed tomography. Urology 130:43–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Erturhan S, Bayrak O, Mete A, Seckiner I, Urgun G, Sarica K (2013) Can the Hounsfield unit predict the success of medically expulsive therapy? Can Urol Assoc J 7(11–12):E677–E680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hada A, Yadav SS, Tomar V, Priyadarshi S, Agarwal N, Gulani A (2018) Assessment of factors affecting the spontaneous passage of lower ureteric calculus on the basis of lower ureteric calculus diameter, density, and plasma C-reactive protein level. Urol Ann 10(3):302–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Balci M, Tuncel A, Aydin O, Aslan Y, Guzel O, Toprak U et al (2014) Tamsulosin versus nifedipin in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones and the predictive value of Hounsfield unit in stone expulsion. Ren Fail 36:1541

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Mohamed Samir, Hossam Elawady & Ahmed Tawfick

  2. Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Emad Hamid

Authors
  1. Mohamed Samir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hossam Elawady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emad Hamid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmed Tawfick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AT: project development, data management, and manuscript writing and editing; MS: project development and data management; EH: project development and data management.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Tawfick.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

The research involving human participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. And the study was approved by hospital ethical committee.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Samir, M., Elawady, H., Hamid, E. et al. Can ureteral wall thickness (UWT) be used as a potential parameter for decision-making in uncomplicated distal ureteral stones 5–10 mm in size? A prospective study. World J Urol 39, 3555–3561 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03608-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03608-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation