Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using a three-dimensional computer assisted stone volume estimates to evaluate extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of kidney stones

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

Abstract

This study describes and evaluates the use of non-contrast enhanced computerized tomography (NCCT) before and after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). Computer measured stone volume was used as an exact measurement for treatment response. 81 patients received SWL of kidney stones at Herlev Hospital between April 2013 and January 2014 and follow-up was possible in 77 (95 %) patients. NCCT was used before and after treatment. Treatment response was expressed as a reduction of the stone volume. Stone characteristics as the stone volumes, HU, SSD and localization were measured by radiologist using a vendor non-specific computer program. Complications, patient characteristics and additional treatment were registered. On average, 5858 shocks were given each patient. The follow-up NCCT was performed 24 days after treatment. It was possible to calculate the stone volume in 88 % of the patients—the remaining 12 % it was not possible due to stone disintegration. The stone free rate was 22 %. The average relative reduction in stone burden was 62 %. Only 8 % of the patients were radiological non-responders. Steinstrasse was observed in 13 (17 %) and 28 (36 %) patients had additional treatment performed. Irradiation dose per NCCT was 2.6 mSv. Stone volume could be calculated in most patients. The relative reduction in stone burden after treatment was 62 %. The stone volume was redundant when evaluating stone free patients, but in cases of partial response it gave an exact quantification, to be used in the further management and follow-up of the patients.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Niemann T, Kollmann T, Bongartz G (2008) Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191(2):396–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M (2014) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD007044. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007044.pub3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HN, Nalbant I, Gucuk A, Imamoglu MA (2013) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, shock wave lithotripsy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi 10–20 mm. Urol Int. 91(3):345–349. doi:10.1159/000351136 [Epub 2013 Jun 28]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee HY, Yang YH, Lee YL, Shen JT, Jang MY, Shih PM, Wu WJ, Chou YH, Juan YS (2015) Noncontrast computed tomography factors that predict the renal stone outcome after shock wave lithotripsy. Clin Imaging. doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.04.010 [Epub ahead of print]

    Google Scholar 

  5. Deters LA, Jumper CM, Steinberg PL, Pais VM Jr (2011) Evaluating the definition of “stone free status” in contemporary urologic literature. Clin Nephrol 76(5):354–357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Küpeli B, Gürocak S, Tunç L, Senocak C, Karaoğlan U, Bozkirli I (2005) Value of ultrasonography and helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of stone-free patients after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (USG and helical CT after SWL). Int Urol Nephrol 37(2):225–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel SR, Wells S, Ruma J, King S, Lubner MG, Nakada SY, Pickhardt PJ (2012) Automated volumetric assessment by noncontrast computed tomography in the surveillance of nephrolithiasis. Urology 80(1):27–31. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.03.009 [Epub 2012 May 10]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Finch W, Johnston R, Shaida N, Winterbottom A, Wiseman O (2014) Measuring stone volume—three-dimensional software reconstruction or an ellipsoid algebra formula? BJU Int. 113(4):610–614 [Epub 2014 Jan 15]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kroft LJ, de Roos A, Geleijns J (2007) Artifacts in ECG-synchronized MDCT coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(3):581–591

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cicerello E, Merlo F, Maccatrozzo L (2012) Management of clinically insignificant residual fragments following shock wave lithotripsy. Adv Urol 2012:320104. doi:10.1155/2012/320104. PMCID: PMC3371344

  11. Osman Y, Harraz AM, El-Nahas AR, Awad B, El-Tabey N, Shebel H, Shoma AM, Eraky I, El-Kenawy M (2013) Clinically insignificant residual fragments: an acceptable term in the computed tomography era? Urology 81(4):723–726. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.011 [Epub 2013 Mar 7]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Clavien PA et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Seitz C (2015) Guidelines on urolithiasis. european association of urology. http://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/. Accessed 12 June 2015

  14. Obek C, Onal B, Kantay K et al (2001) The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower pole calculi compared with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi. J Urol 166(6):2081–2085

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Turna B, Ekren F, Nazli O et al (2007) Comparative results of shockwave lithotripsy for renal calculi in upper, middle, and lower calices. J Endourol 21(9):951–956

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sozen S, Kupeli B, Acar C, Gurocak S, Karaoglan U, Bozkirli I (2008) Significance of lower-pole pelvicaliceal anatomy on stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy in nonobstructive isolated renal pelvic stones. J Endourol 22(5):877–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Geraghty R, Burr J, Simmonds N, Somani BK (2015) Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: parallel group comparison during the same time period. Urol Ann 7(1):46–48. doi:10.4103/0974-7796.148601

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Khalil MM (2012) Which is more important in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of solitary renal stones: stone location or stone burden? J Endourol 26(5):535–539. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0314 [Epub 2011 Nov 21]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Viprakasit DP, Sawyer MD, Herrell SD, Miller NL (2012) Limitations of ultrasonography in the evaluation of urolithiasis: a correlation with computed tomography. J Endourol 26(3):209–213. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0177 [Epub 2011 Oct 19]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Graumann O, Osther SS, Spasojevic D, Osther PJ (2012) Can the CT planning image determine whether a kidney stone is radiopaque on a plain KUB? Urol Res 40(4):333–337. doi:10.1007/s00240-011-0411-9 [Epub 2011 Aug 18]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hur J, Park SB, Lee JB, Park HJ, Chang IH, Kwon JK, Kim YS (2015) CT for evaluation of urolithiasis: image quality of ultralow-dose (Sub mSv) CT with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction and diagnostic performance of low-dose CT with statistical iterative reconstruction. Abdom Imaging 40(7):2432–2440. doi:10.1007/s00261-015-0411-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sahin C, Kafkasli A, Cetinel CA, Narter F, Saglam E, Sarica K (2015) How do the residual fragments after SWL affect the health-related quality of life? A critical analysis in a size-based manner. Urolithiasis 43(2):163–170. doi:10.1007/s00240-014-0727-3 [Epub 2014 Oct 2]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bhojani N, Mandeville JA, Hameed TA, Soergel TM, McAteer JA, Williams JC Jr, Krambeck AE, Lingeman JE (2015) Lithotripter outcomes in a community practice setting: comparison of an electromagnetic and an electrohydraulic lithotripter. J Urol 193(3):875–879. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.117 [Epub 2014 Oct 8]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bigum LH, Spielmann ME, Juhl G, Rasmussen A (2015) A qualitative study exploring male cancer patients’ experiences with percutaneous nephrostomy. Scand J Urol 49(2):162–168. doi:10.3109/21681805.2014.938694 [Epub 2014 Dec 1]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(4):524–528. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08069.x [Epub 2008 Oct 31]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Selby MG, Vrtiska TJ, Krambeck AE, McCollough CH, Elsherbiny HE, Bergstralh EJ, Lieske JC, Rule AD (2015) Quantification of asymptomatic kidney stone burden by computed tomography for predicting future symptomatic stone events. Urology 85(1):45–50. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.031 [Epub 2014 Oct 22]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Colin A. Stedmon for final language revision.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Herlev Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark

    Lene Hyldgaard Bigum & Omar Salah Omar

  2. CT Innovation Unit at Department of Radiology, Herlev Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, Herlev, Denmark

    Peter Sommer Ulriksen

Authors
  1. Lene Hyldgaard Bigum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Sommer Ulriksen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Omar Salah Omar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lene Hyldgaard Bigum.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bigum, L.H., Ulriksen, P.S. & Omar, O.S. Using a three-dimensional computer assisted stone volume estimates to evaluate extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of kidney stones. Urolithiasis 44, 451–457 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0864-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0864-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation