Urological Research

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 299–304

Is shock wave lithotripsy efficient for the elderly stone formers? Results of a matched-pair analysis

  • Prodromos Philippou
  • Djelali Lamrani
  • Konstantinos Moraitis
  • Christian Bach
  • Junaid Masood
  • Noor Buchholz
Original Paper

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), in a comparative study based on the principles of matched-pair analysis. Over a period of 4 years, 2,311 patients were treated with SWL in a tertiary referral center. Patient and stone data were recorded in a prospective electronic database. Among these patients, 115 (4.97%) were older than 70 years of age and fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the study (Group A). For the purposes of the comparative analysis, Group A patients were matched for gender and stone parameters (side, location of stone, and diameter ±2 mm) with a control group of patients under the age of 70 (Group B). Following matching, the patients’ electronic medical records were reviewed, to identify SWL success rates at 3 months and McNemar’s test was used to compare the efficacy of SWL between the two groups. Matching was possible in all cases. The results indicate that there were no statistically significant differences in the mean number of SWL sessions or in the mean number of impulses per session between the two groups. The overall stone clearance rate achieved by SWL alone was 71.3% for Group A and 73.9% for group B. Discordant pairs were found in 37 cases (in 17 pairs only patients in Group A became stone-free, while in 20 pairs only patients in Group B became stone-free). By using McNemar’s test, the difference in stone clearance rates between the two groups was not found to be statistically significant (p = 0.742). A total of 22 patients (19.1%) in Group A and 17 patients (14.7%) in Group B underwent an adjuvant procedure to achieve stone clearance. McNemar’s test also revealed the absence of any statistically significant difference in SWL success rates between older and younger patients in the subgroups of patients presenting with either ureteric or renal stones (p = 0.727 and p = 0.571, respectively). In conclusion, SWL is still considered one of the first-line tools for geriatric patients suffering from urolithiasis, as increased age alone does not seem to adversely affect the efficacy of SWL.

Keywords

Elderly Shockwave lithotripsy Stones Matched-pair 

References

  1. 1.
    Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P et al (2007) Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 52:1610–1631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ng CF (2009) The effect of age on outcomes in patients undergoing treatment for renal stones. Curr Opin Urol 19:211–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gentle DL, Stoller ML, Bruce JE, Leslie SW (1997) Geriatric urolithiasis. J Urol 158:2221–2224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Usui Y, Matsuzaki S, Matsushita K, Shima M (2003) Urolithiasis in geriatric patients. Tokai J Exp Clin Med 28:81–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kramolowsky EV, Quinlan SM, Loening SA (1987) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of urinary calculi in the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc 35:251–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sighinolfi MC, Micali S, Grande M, Mofferdin A, De Stefani S, Bianchi G (2008) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in an elderly population: how to prevent complications and make the treatment safe and effective. J Endourol 22:2223–2226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halachmi S, Meretyk S (2006) Shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones in elderly male patients. Aging Male 9:171–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ackermann DK, Fuhrimann R, Pfluger D, Studer UE, Zingg EJ (1994) Prognosis after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of radiopaque renal calculi: a multivariate analysis. Eur Urol 25:105–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abdel-Khalek M, Sheir KZ, Mokhtar AA, Eraky I, Kenawy M, Bazeed M (2004) Prediction of success rate after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of renal stones—a multivariate analysis model. Scand J Urol Nephrol 38:161–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomha MA, Sheir KZ, Showky S, Abdel-Khalek M, Mokhtar AA, Madbouly K (2004) Can we improve the prediction of stone-free status after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? A neural network or a statistical model? J Urol 172:175–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Delakas D, Karyotis I, Daskalopoulos G, Lianos E, Mavromanolakis E (2003) Independent predictors of failure of shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones employing a second-generation lithotripter. J Endourol 17:201–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, Asakura H, Miyajima A, Oya M, Ohigashi T, Murai M (2006) Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 176:1453–1456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ng CF, Wong A, Tolley D (2007) Is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy the preferred treatment option for elderly patients with urinary stone? A multivariate analysis of the effect of patient age on treatment outcome. BJU Int 100:392–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weinstein JR, Anderson S (2010) The aging kidney: physiological changes. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 17:302–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Argyropoulos AN, Tolley DA (2010) Evaluation of outcome following lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol 20:154–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Portis AJ, Yan Y, Pattaras JG, Andreoni C, Moore R, Clayman RV (2003) Matched pair analysis of shock wave lithotripsy effectiveness for comparison of lithotriptors. J Urol 169:58–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stewart GD, Bariol SV, Moussa SA, Smith G, Tolley DA (2007) Matched pair analysis of ureteroscopy vs. shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteric calculi. Int J Clin Pract 61:784–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Youssef RF, El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, El-Tabey NA, El-Hefnawy AS, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR, El-Kappany HA, Sheir KZ (2009) Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi (<20 mm): a comparative matched-pair study. Urology 73:1184–1187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Argyropoulos AN, Tolley DA (2009) Ureteric stents compromise stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stones: results of a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 103:76–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knapp PM, Kulb TB, Lingeman JE, Newman DM, Mertz JH, Mosbaugh PG, Steele RE (1988) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy-induced perirenal hematomas. J Urol 139:700–703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dhar NB, Thornton J, Karafa MT, Streem SB (2004) A multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with subcapsular hematoma formation following electromagnetic shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 172:2271–2274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Newman LH, Saltzman B (1991) Identifying risk factors in development of clinically significant post-shock-wave lithotripsy subcapsular hematomas. Urology 38:35–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ikegaya H, Kato A, Kumano S, Tominaga T (2005) Correlation between age and the efficacy of ESWL. BJU Int 96:1145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prodromos Philippou
    • 1
  • Djelali Lamrani
    • 1
  • Konstantinos Moraitis
    • 1
  • Christian Bach
    • 1
  • Junaid Masood
    • 1
  • Noor Buchholz
    • 1
  1. 1.Endourology and Stone Services, Department of UrologyBarts and The London NHS TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations