Advertisement

Urolithiasis

, Volume 44, Issue 6, pp 559–564 | Cite as

Effect of anxiety and pain on success of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for treatment of proximal ureteral and renal pelvic stones

  • Oktay UcerEmail author
  • Yasin Ceylan
  • Fatih Ekren
  • Erol Ozan
  • Talha Muezzinoglu
Original Paper

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of anxiety and pain on success of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for treatment of proximal ureteral and renal pelvic stones smaller than 15 mm. One hundred thirty-two patients with proximal ureteral or renal pelvic stones <15 mm who were treated by a SWL and forty controls were enrolled in the study. State-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) was used to assess anxiety of the controls and patients (before every SWL session). Pains of the patients were measured by a visual analog scale (VAS) at three times (T) of the sessions (T11 at 11 kV, T15 at 15 kV and T end of treatment). The mean STAI scores of the patients at the first SWL session and controls were 40.61 ± 8.71 and 36.11 ± 8.18, respectively (p < 0.05). There was statistically positive moderate relationship between STAI and VAS scores at the first SWL session. The mean size of stone in men and women were 11.16 ± 2.88 and 11.00 ± 3.41, respectively (p = 0.88). In the first session, the mean STAI and VAS scores of the men were significantly lower than the women. The stone-free rate (SFR) of SWL was 72.7 % in this study. The SFR of SWL in the men and women were 78 and 64 %, respectively (p < 0.05). Our data showed that the severity of anxiety and pain in the women were higher than the men. SFR of SWL in the men was higher than the women. The severity of anxiety and pain in the patients may affect SFR of SWL.

Keywords

SWL Anxiety Pain Stone Ureter Renal pelvis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E (1980) Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. Lancet 2:1265–1268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Seitz C (2015) Guidelines on Urolithiasis 2015. pp 25–30. Uroweb available at: http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-Urolithiasis-2015-v2.pdf
  3. 3.
    Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Dretler SP, Kahn RI, Lingeman JE, Macaluso JN Jr (1997) Ureteral stones clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. Am Urol Assoc J Urol 158:1915–1921Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O, Sheir KZ (2007) A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomography. Eur Urol 51:1688–1693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Park YI, Yu JH, Sung LH, Noh CH, Chung JY (2010) Evaluation of possible predictive variables for the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones. Korean J Urol 51:713–718CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT Jr, Nakada SY (2005) Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology 66:941–944CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ng CF, Lo AK, Lee KW, Wong KT, Chung WY, Gohel D (2012) A prospective, randomized study of the clinical effects of shock wave delivery for unilateral kidney stones: 60 versus 120 shocks per minute. J Urol 188:837–842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ng CF, Thompson TJ, McLornan L, Tolley DA (2006) Single-center experience using three shockwave lithotripters with different generator designs in management of urinary calculi. J Endourol 20:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Le Compte A, Oner N (1975) A study related to adaptation and standardization of state-trait anxiety inventory into Turkish. In: Proceeding of 9th National congress of psychiatry and neurologic sciences, pp 457–462Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ktari K, Saidi R, Mahjoub M et al (2015) What are the predictive factors of the pain during the treatment of kidney stones by extra-corporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Prog Urol 25:698–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torrecilla Ortiz C, Rodríguez Blanco LL, Díaz Vicente F, González Satué C, Marco Pérez LM, Trilla Herrera E, Serrallach i Milá N (2000) Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: anxiety and pain perception. Actas Urol Esp 24:163–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salinas AS, Lorenzo-Romero J, Segura M, Calero MR, Hernández-Millán I, Martínez-Martín M, Virseda JA (1999) Factors determining analgesic and sedative drug requirements during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Int 63:92–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ehreth JT, Drach GW, Arnett ML et al (1994) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: multicenter study of kidney and upper ureter versus middle and lower ureter treatments. J Urol 152(5 Pt 1):1379–1385PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG et al (2007) 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 52(6):1610–1631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oktay Ucer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yasin Ceylan
    • 2
  • Fatih Ekren
    • 3
  • Erol Ozan
    • 4
  • Talha Muezzinoglu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Faculty of MedicineCelal Bayar UniversityManisaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of UrologyIzmir Bozyaka Training and Research HospitalIzmirTurkey
  3. 3.Urology ClinicPrivate Batı Urology Branch CenterManisaTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of MedicineCelal Bayar UniversityManisaTurkey

Personalised recommendations