Advertisement

Current Urology Reports

, 18:25 | Cite as

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy: Current Perspectives and Future Directions

  • Andrew C. Lawler
  • Eric M. Ghiraldi
  • Carmen Tong
  • Justin I. FriedlanderEmail author
Endourology (P Mucksavage, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Endourology

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Since its introduction, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has undergone a variety of changes; however, it remains one of the most utilized treatment modalities for urolithiasis. The goal of this review is to provide the practicing urologist an update on contemporary trends, new technologies, and related controversies in utilizing ESWL for stone treatment.

Recent Findings

ESWL use has come under scrutiny with a shift in focus to cost-effectiveness and healthcare outcomes. Fortunately, advances in lithotripter technology have spawned several generations of devices that strive to improve stone-free rates and decrease complications. Most of all, a focus on patient selection criteria has helped improve procedural success.

Summary

Years of experience utilizing ESWL for stone treatment have helped urologists better optimize its use and minimize complications. Improvements in technique along with more stringent patient and stone selection have helped ESWL remain a mainstay in the treatment of stone disease.

Keywords

ESWL Urinary tract stones Urolithiasis Lithotripter Ureteroscopy Percutaneous nephrolithotomy 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Andrew C. Lawler, Eric M. Ghiraldi, and Carmen Tong each declares no potential conflicts of interest.

Justin I. Friedlander is a consultant for Retrophin.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Chaussy C, Schuller J, Schmiedt E, et al. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of urolithiasis. Urology. 1984;23(5):59–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller N, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline. Part I J Urol. 2016;196(4):1161–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaussy, C. “Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Past, Present, and Future.” Shock Wave Lithotripsy. New York: Springer US, 1988. Springer Book Archive. Web. 11 Dec 2016.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, et al. A new transportable shock-wave lithotripsy machine for managing urinary stones: a single-centre experience with a dual-focus lithotripter. BJU Int. 2007;100:1137–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McClain PD, Lange JN, Assimos DG. Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review. Rev Urol. 2013;15(2):49–60.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zehnder P, Roth B, Birkhäuser F, et al. A prospective randomised trial comparing the modified HM3 with the MODULITH(®) SLX-F2 lithotripter. Eur Urol. 2011;59:637–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerber R, Studer UE, Danuser H. Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations. J Urol. 2005;173:2013–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graber SF, Danuser H, Hochreiter WW, Studer UE. A prospective randomized trial comparing 2 lithotripters for stone disintegration and induced renal trauma. J Urol. 2003;169:54–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matin SF, Yost A, Streem SB. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: a comparative study of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic units. J Urol. 2001;166:2053–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    • Faragher SR, Cleveland RO, Kumar S, et al. In Vitro assessment of three clinical lithotripters employing different shock wave generators. J Endourol. 2016;30(5):560–66. This in vitro investigation demonstrated that lithotripters with electromagnetic and piezoelectric generators did not have statistically significant differences in stone reduction rates as compared to each, but both had significantly higher rates than the electroconductive lithotripter. The electroconductive lithotripter also decreased in efficacy after 6000 shocks.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kerbl K, Rehman J, Landman J, Lee D, Sundaram C, Clayman RV. Current management of urolithisasis: progress or regress? J Endourol. 2002;16(5):281–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cleveland RO, Anglade R, Babayan RK. Effect of stone motion on in vitro comminution efficiency of a Storx Modulith SLX. J Endourol. 2004;18:629–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sorensen MD, Bailey MR, Shah AR, Hsi RS, Paun M, Harper JD. Quantitative assessment of shockwave lithotripsy accuracy and the effect of respiratory motion. J Endourol. 2012;26(8):1070–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pishchalnikov YA, McAteer JA, Williams JC, et al. Evaluation of the LithoGold LG-380 Lithotripter: in vitro acoustic characterization and assessment of renal injury in the pig model. J Endourol. 2013;27(5):631–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pishchalnikov YA, Vonderhaar RJ, Williams JC, et al. The advantage of a broad focal zone in SWL: in vitro stone breakage comparing two electromagnetic lithotripters. J Urol. 2008;179:464–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bhojani N, Mandeville JA, Hameed TA, et al. Lithotripter outcomes in a community practice setting: comparison of an electromagnetic and electrohydraulic lithotripter. J Urol. 2015;193:875–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rassweiler JJ, Knoll T, Köhrmann KU, et al. Shock wave technology and application: an update. Eur Urol. 2011;59:784–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    John BS, Patel U, Anson K. What radiation exposure can a patient expect during a single stone episode? J Endourol. 2008;22:419–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bohris C, Bayer T, Gumpinger R. Ultrasound monitoring of kidney stone extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with an external transducer: does fatty tissue cause image distortions that affect stone comminution. J Endourol. 2010;24(1):81–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen CJ, Hsu HC, Chung WS, et al. Clinical experience with ultrasound-based real-time tracking lithotripsy in the single renal stone treatment. J Endourol. 2009;23(11):1811–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abid N, Ravier E, Promeyrat X, et al. Decreased radiation exposure and increased efficacy in extracorporeal lithotripsy using a new ultrasound stone locking system. J Endourol. 2015;29(11):1263–69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mazzucchi E, Brito AH, Danilovic A, et al. Comparison between two shock wave regimens using frequencies of 60 and 90 impulses per minute for urinary stones. Clinics Sau Paulo. 2010;65(10):961–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Honey RJ, Schuler TD, Ghiculete D, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial to compare shock wave frequencies of 60 and 120 shocks per minute for upper ureteral stones. J Urol. 2009;182(4):1418–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nguyen DP, Hnilicka S, Kiss B, et al. Optimization of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy delivery rates achieves excellent outcomes for ureteral stones: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol. 2015;194(2):418–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhou Y, Cocks FH, Preminger GM, et al. The effect of treatment strategy on stone comminution efficiency in shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2004;172(1):349–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Willis LR, Evan AP, Connors BA, et al. Prevention of lithotripsy-induced renal injury by pretreating kidneys with low-energy shock waves. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17(3):663–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Handa RK, McAteer JA, Connors BA, et al. Optimising an escalating shockwave amplitude treatment strategy to protect the kidney from injury during shockwave lithotripsy. BJU Int. 2012;110(11):1041–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ng CF, Luke S, Yee CH, et al. A prospective randomized study comparing the effect of different kidney protection treatment protocols on acute renal injury after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2017;31:57–65.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Skuginna V, Nguyen DP, Seiler R. Does stepwise voltage ramping protect the kidney during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? results of a prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2016;69:267–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fernandez F, Fernandez G, Loske AM. Treatment time reduction using tandem shockwaves for lithotripsy: an in vivo study. J Endourol. 2009;23(8):1247–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shah A, Harper JD, Cunitz BW, et al. Focused ultra-sound to expel calculi from the kidney. J Urol. 2012;187(2):739–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    •• Garcia-Galisteo E, Sanchez-Martinez N, Molina-Diaz P, et al. Invasive treatment trends in urinary calculi in a third level hospital. Actas Urol Esp. 2015;39(1):32–7. An observational review of ESWL utilization at a tertiary care facility from 1998 to 2012. Nearly 11,000 patients were available for review, 90% of which were treated with ESWL. A clear peak in ESWL treatments was observed in 2006, with a progressive decline thereafter with an associated increase in endoscopic procedures. The study is relevant to our review as it describes contemporary trends of ESWL utilization.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Acland G, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Rice M. Contemporary trends in urinary tract stone surgery, a regional perspective: Auckland, New Zealand. ANZ J Surg. 2016;86(4):244–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Manzoor S, Hashmi AH, Sohail MA, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. ureterorenoscopic (URS) manipulation in proximal ureteric stone. J Coll Physicans Surg Pak. 2013;23(10):726–30.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cecen K, Karadaq MA, Demir A, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper/middle calyx kidney stones of 10-20mm: a retrospective analysis of 174 patients. Springerplus. 2014;3:557.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20mm. BJU Int. 2012;110(6):898–902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pearle et al. Smith’s Textbook of Endourology. Chapter 66: Cost effective strategies for management.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, et al. Treatment of ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Urol. 2012;188:130.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    •• Cone EB, Eisner BH, Ursiny M, et al. Cost-effectiveness comparison of renal calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2014;28(6):639–43. Cost effectiveness for ESWL versus URS to treat renal and ureteral stones relies on selecting the ideal candidate. Cone et al. creates a decision analysis model using two retrospective cohorts for renal and ureteral stones, respectively. For renal stones, ESWL is more cost-effective than URS if a stone free rate of greater than 67% is achieved. For ureteral stones, ESWL is more cost effective than URS if a stone free rate of greater than 64% is achieved. Each study identifies URS as a superior treatment to ESWL for managing renal and ureteral stones <1.5 cm. Both studies stress the importance of careful patient selection for ESWL to limit health care costs.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cone EB, Pareek G, Ursiny M, et al. Cost-effectiveness comparison of ureteral calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy. World J Urol. 2017;35:161–166.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grasso M, Beaghler M, Loisides P. The case for primary endoscopic management of upper urinary tract calculi: II. Cost and outcome assessment of 112 primary ureteral calculi. Urology. 1995;45:372–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Parker BD, Frederick RW, Reilly TP, Lowry PS, Bird ET. Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. Urology. 2004;64:1102–06. discussion 1106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kim JK, Ha SB, Jeon CH et al. Clinical nomograms to predict stone-free rates after shock-wave lithotripsy: development and internal-validation. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0149333.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    •• Tran TY, McGillen K, Cone EB, et al. Triple D score is a reportable predictor of shockwave lithotripsy stone-free rates. J Endourol. 2015;29(2):226–30. Predictive tools to help identify the ideal candidate for ESWL is very important as it is the most cost-effective treatment we have in our armamentarium if successful at rendering patients stone free. The triple D score identifies three quantitative variables, stone density, skin to stone distance, and stone diameter (volume) that are associated improved stone free rates.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Park HS, Gong MK, Yoon CY, et al. Computed tomography based novel prediction model for the outcome of shockwave lithotripsy in proximal ureteral stones. J Endourol. 2016;30(7):810–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al. Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Available at: http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/22-Urolithiasis_LR.pdf. Uroweb. 2014. Accessed November 22, 2016.
  47. 47.
    • Denburg MR, Jemielita TO, Tasian GE, et al. Assessing the risk of incident hypertension and chronic kidney disease after exposure to shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy. Kidney Int. 2016;89(1):185–92. A large epidemiologic study utilizing The Health Improvement network (THIN) database to compare the risk of hypertension and CKD in patients without urolithiasis, patients managed conservatively for urolithiasis, and patients managed with ESWL or URS. This is a timely and contemporary study challenging the controversy of ESWLs associated risk of HTN and CKD, for which several studies in the literature are underpowered. Within this large patient database, Denburg et al. identified an increased risk of HTN with ESWL to the kidney in all age groups, ESWL to the ureter in patient’s younger than 40, and no associating of increased risk of HTN or CKD in patients receiving URS for kidney or ureteral stones.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lingemen JE, Woods JR, Toth PD. Blood pressure changes following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and other forms of treatment for nephrolithiasis. JAMA. 1990;263(13):1789–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Krambeck AE, Gettman MT, Rohlinger AL, et al. Diabetes mellitus and hypertension associated with shock wave lithotripsy of renal and proximal ureteral stones at 19 years of followup. J Urol. 2006;175:1742–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Elves AW, Tilling K, Menezes P, Wills M, Rao PN, Feneley RC. Early observations of the effect of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy on blood pressure: a prospective randomized control clinical trial. BJU Int. 2000;85:611.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jewett MAS, Bombardier C, Logan AG, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess the incidence of new onset hypertension in patients after shock wave lithotripsy for asymptomatic renal calculi. J Urol. 1998;60:1241–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Krambeck AE, Rule AD, Li X, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy is not predictive of hypertension among community stone formers at long-term followup. J Urol. 2011;185:164–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yu C, Longfei L, Long W, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of new onset hypertension after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2014;46(4):719–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Fankhauser CD, Kranzbühler B, Poyet C, et al. Long-term adverse effects of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis: a systematic review. Urology. 2015;85(5):991–1006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pirola GM, Micali S, Sighinolfi MC, et al. Evaluation of long-term side effects after shock-wave lithotripsy for renal calculi using a third generation electromagnetic lithotripter. Urolithiasis. 2016;44(5):465–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Makhlouf AA, Thorner D, Ugarte R, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy not associated with development of diabetes mellitus at 6 years of follow-up. Urology. 2009;73:4–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    de Cógáin M, Krambeck AE, Rule AD, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy and diabetes mellitus: a population-based cohort study. Urology. 2012;79(2):298–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Deng T, Liao B, Tian Y, et al. New-onset diabetes mellitus after shock wave lithotripsy for urinary stone: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2015;43(3):227–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    el-Assmy A, el-Nahas AR, Hekal IA, et al. Long-term effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on renal function: our experience with 156 patients with solitary kidney. J Urol. 2008;179:2229–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Philippou P, Ralph DJ, Timoney AG. The impact of shock wave lithotripsy on male fertility: a critical analysis of existing literature. Urology. 2012;79(3):492–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Vieweg J, Weber HM, Miller K, Hautmann R. Female fertility following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1992;148(3 Pt 2):1007–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew C. Lawler
    • 1
  • Eric M. Ghiraldi
    • 2
  • Carmen Tong
    • 2
  • Justin I. Friedlander
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Philadelphia College of Osteopathic MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyEinstein Healthcare NetworkPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Division of Urologic Oncology and UrologyFox Chase Cancer CenterPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Einstein Healthcare Network, Temple Health and the Fox Chase Cancer CenterPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations