Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ureteral wall thickness at the impacted ureteral stone site: a critical predictor for success rates after SWL

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine the possible predictive value of certain patient- and stone-related factors on the stone-free rates and auxiliary procedures after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with impacted proximal ureteral calculi. A total of 111 patients (86 male, 25 females M/F: 3.44/1) with impacted proximal ureteral stones treated with shock wave lithotripsy were evaluated. Cases were retrieved from a departmental shock wave lithotripsy database. Variables analyzed included BMI of the case, diameter of proximal ureter and renal pelvis, stone size and Hounsfield unit, ureteral wall thickness at the impacted stone site. Stone-free status on follow-up imaging at 3 months was considered a successful outcome. All patients had a single impacted proximal ureteral stone. While the mean age of the cases was 46 ± 13 years (range 26–79 years), mean stone size was 8.95 mm (5.3–15.1 mm). Following shock wave lithotripsy although 87 patients (78.4 %) were completely stone-free at 3-month follow-up visit, 24 (21.6 %) cases had residual fragments requiring further repeat procedures. Prediction of the final outcome of SWL in patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones is a challenging issue and our data did clearly indicate a highly significant relationship between ureteral wall thickness and the success rates of shock wave lithotripsy particularly in cases requiring additional procedures. Of all the evaluated stone- and patient-related factors, only ureteral wall thickness at the impacted stone site independently predicted shock wave lithotripsy success.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mugiya S, Ito T, Maruyama S, Hadano S, Nagae H (2004) Endoscopic features of impacted ureteral stones. J Urol 171:89–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Deliveliotis C, Chrisofos M, Albanis S, Serafetinides E, Varkarakis J, Protogerou V (2003) Management and follow-up of impacted ureteral stones. Urol Int 70:269–272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Morgentaler A, Bridge SS, Dretler SP (1990) Management of the impacted ureteral calculus. J Urol 143:263–266

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Binbay M, Tepeler A, Singh A, Akman T, Tekinaslan E, Sarilar O et al (2011) Evaluation of pneumatic versus holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted ureteral stones. Int Urol Nephrol 43:989–995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wolf JS Jr (2007) Treatment selection and outcomes: Ureteral calculi. Urol Clin North Am 34:421–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG et al (1997) Ureteral stones clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. Am Urol Assoc J Urol 158:1915–1921

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck AC, Gallucci M et al (2007) 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 52:1610–1631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Skrepetis K, Doumas K, Siafakas I, Lykourinas M (2001) Laparoscopic versus open ureterolithotomy. A comparative study. Eur Urol 40:32–36

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2014) Guidelines on urolithiasis. European Association of Urology, Arnhem

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ghoneim IA, El-Ghoneimy MN, El-Naggar AE, Hammoud KM, El-Gammal MY, Morsi AA (2010) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in impacted upper ureteral stones: a prospective randomized comparison between stented and non-stented techniques. Urology 75:45–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lopes Neto AC, Korkes F, Silva JL 2nd, Amarante RD, Mattos MH, Tobias-Machado M et al (2012) Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy. J Urol 187:164–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, Lin CL, Chen CS (2004) Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol 172(5 Pt 1):1899–1902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dretler SP, Keating MA, Riley J (1986) An algorithm for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 136:1190–1193

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mueller SC, Wilbert D, Thueroff JW, Alken P (1986) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones: clinical experience and experimental findings. J Urol 135:831–834

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell – Ureterla calculi chapter

  17. ElGanainy E, Hameed DA, Elgammal MA, Abd-Elsayed AA, Shalaby M (2009) Experience with impacted upper ureteral Stones; should we abandon using semirigid ureteroscopes and pneumatic lithoclast? Int Arch Med 2:13

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sun X, Xia S, Lu J, Liu H, Han B, Li W (2008) Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. J Endourol 22:913–917

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Juan YS, Shen JT, Li CC, Wang CJ, Chuang SM, Huang CH et al (2008) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted, large, proximal ureteral stones. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 24:204–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Manohar T, Ganpule A, Desai M (2008) Comparative evaluation of Swiss Litho Clast 2 and holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for impacted upper-ureteral stones. J Endourol 22:443–446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mugiya S, Ozono S, Nagata M, Takayama T, Nagae H (2006) Retrograde endoscopic management of ureteral stones more than 2 cm in size. Urology 67:1164–1168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yagisawa T, Kobayashi C, Ishikawa N, Kobayashi H, Toma H (2001) Benefits of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy for the treatment of impacted ureteral stones. J Endourol 15:697–699

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Karlsen SJ, Renkel J, Tahir AR, Angelsen A, Diep LM (2007) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for 5- to 10 mm stones in the proximal ureter: prospective effectiveness patient-preference trial. J Endourol 21:28–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ziaee SA, Halimiasl P, Aminsharifi A, Shafi H, Beigi FM, Basiri A (2008) Management of 10–15 mm proximal ureteral stones: ureteroscopy or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Urology 71:28–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Singh I, Gupta NP, Hemal AK et al (2001) Efficacy and outcome of surgical intervention in patients with nephrolithiasis and chronic renal failure. Int Urol Nephrol 33:293–298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Liong ML, Clayman RV, Gittes RF et al (1989) Treatment options for proximal ureteral urolithiasis: review and recommendations. J Urol 141:504–509

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee YH, Tsai JY, Jiaan BP, Wu T, Yu CC (2006) Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for management of large upper third ureteral stones. Urology 67(3):480–484 (discussion 484)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yu W, Cheng F, Zhang X, Yang S, Ruan Y, Xia Y et al (2010) Retrogradeureteroscopic treatment for upper ureteral stones: a 5-year retrospective study. J Endourol 24:1753–1757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fong YK, Ho SH, Peh OH, Ng FC, Lim PH, Quek PL et al (2004) Extracorporea shockwave lithotripsy and intracorporeal lithotripsy for proximal ureteric calculi—a comparative assessment of efficacy and safety. Ann Acad Med Singap 33:80–83

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

We (all authors) declare that we have no conflict of interest. No company or organization sponsored our study and we do not have any financial relationship with any company or organization.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Kemal Sarica, Alper Kafkasli, Özgür Yazici, Ali Cihangir Çetinel, Mehmet Kutlu Demirkol, Murat Tuncer, Cahit Şahin & Bilal Eryildirim

Authors
  1. Kemal Sarica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alper Kafkasli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Özgür Yazici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ali Cihangir Çetinel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mehmet Kutlu Demirkol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Murat Tuncer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Cahit Şahin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bilal Eryildirim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alper Kafkasli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sarica, K., Kafkasli, A., Yazici, Ö. et al. Ureteral wall thickness at the impacted ureteral stone site: a critical predictor for success rates after SWL. Urolithiasis 43, 83–88 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0724-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0724-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation