Skip to main content

Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies

Abstract

Objective

To analyze the current evidence on the use of ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the management of obstructing ureteral stones in emergent setting.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed up to June 2016 using Pubmed and Ovid databases to identify pertinent studies. The PRISMA criteria were followed for article selection. Separate searches were done using a combinations of several search terms: “laser lithotripsy”, “ureteroscopy”, “extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy”, “ESWL”, “rapid”, “immediate”, “early”, “delayed”, “late”, “ureteral stones”, “kidney stones”, “renal stones”. Only titles related to emergent/rapid/immediate/early (as viably defined in each study) versus delayed/late treatment of ureteral stones with either URS and/or ESWL were considered for screening. Demographics and operative outcomes were compared between emergent and delayed lithotripsy. RevMan review manager software was used to perform data analysis.

Results

Four studies comparing emergent (n = 526) versus delayed (n = 987) URS and six studies comparing emergent (n = 356) versus delayed (n = 355) SWL were included in the analysis. Emergent URS did not show any significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (91.2 versus 90.9%; OR 1.04; CI 0.71, 1.52; p = 0.84), complication rate (8.7% for emergent versus 11.5% for delayed; OR 0.94; CI 0.65, 1.36; p = 0.74) and need for auxiliary procedures (OR 0.85; CI 0.42, 1.7; p = 0.85) when compared to delayed URS. Emergent ESWL was associated with a higher likelihood of stone free status (OR 2.2; CI 1.55, 3.17; p < 0.001) and a lower likelihood of need for auxiliary maneuvers (OR 0.49; CI 0.33, 0.72; p < 0.001) than the delayed procedure. No differences in complication rates were noticed between the emergent and delayed ESWL (p = 0.37).

Conclusions

Emergent lithotripsy, either ureteroscopic or extracorporeal, can be offered as an effective and safe treatment for patients with symptomatic ureteral stone. If amenable to ESWL, based on stone and patient characteristics, an emergent approach should be strongly considered. Ureteroscopy in the emergent setting is mostly reserved for distally located stones. The implementation of these therapeutic approaches is likely to be dictated by their availability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Teichman JM (2004) Clinical practice acute renal colic from ureteral calculus. N Engl J Med 350:684–693

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K et al (2016) EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):468–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K et al (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):475–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wright PJ, English PJ, Hungin AP, Marsden SN (2002) Managing acute renal colic across the primary-secondary care interface: a pathway of care based on evidence and consensus. BMJ 325:1408–1412

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Cui X, Ji F, Yan H et al (2015) Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis. Urology 85(4):748–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lucarelli G, Ditonno P, Bettocchi C et al (2013) Delayed relief of ureteral obstruction is implicated in the long-term development of renal damage and arterial hypertension in patients with unilateral ureteral injury. J Urol 189(3):960–965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Joshi HB, Obadeyi OO, Rao PN (1999) A comparative analysis of nephrostomy, JJ stent and urgent in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for obstructing ureteric stones. BJU Int 84(3):264–269

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Picozzi SC, Ricci C, Gaeta M et al (2012) Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients. Urol Res 40(6):725–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Torricelli FC, Marchini GS, Pedro RN, Monga M (2016) Ureteroscopy for management of stone disease: an up to date on surgical technique and disposable devices. Minerva Urol Nefrol 68(6):516–526

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Osorio L, Lima E, Soares J et al (2007) Emergency ureteroscopic management of ureteral stones: why not? Urology 69(1):27–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Picozzi SC, Ricci C, Gaeta M et al (2012) Urgent ureteroscopy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 681 patients. Urol Res 40(5):581–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Blackwell RH, Barton GJ, Kothari AN et al (2016) Early intervention during acute stone admissions: revealing “the weekend effect” in urological practice. J Urol 196(1):124–130

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D et al (2017) The Newcastle Ottawa 1 scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

  14. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Youn JH, Kim SS, Yu JH, Sung LH, Noh CH, Chung JY (2012) Efficacy and safety of emergency ureteroscopic management of ureteral calculi. Korean J Urol 53(9):632–635

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Guercio S, Ambu A, Mangione F et al (2011) Randomized prospective trial comparing immediate versus delayed ureteroscopy for patients with ureteral calculi and normal renal function who present to the emergency department. J Endourol 25:1137–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sarica K, Tanriverdi O, Aydin M et al (2011) Emergency ureteroscopic removal of ureteral calculi after first colic attack: is there any advantage? Urology 78:516–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Matani YS, Al-Ghazo MA, Al-Azab RS, Hani OB, Ghalayini IF, Hani IB (2013) Emergency versus elective ureteroscopic treatment of ureteral stones. Can Urol Assoc J 7(7–8):E470–E474

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kravchick S, Bunkin I, Stepnov E, Peled R, Agulansky L, Cytron S (2005) Emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for acute renal colic caused by upper urinary-tract stones. J Endourol 19(1):1–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tombal B, Mawlawi H, Feyaerts A, Wese FX, Opsomer R, Van Cangh PJ (2005) Prospective randomized evaluation of emergency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) on the short-time outcome of symptomatic ureteral stones. Eur Urol 47(6):855–859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kumar A, Mohanty NK, Jain M, Prakash S, Arora RP (2010) A prospective randomized comparison between early (< 48 h of onset of colicky pain) versus delayed shockwave lithotripsy for symptomatic upper ureteral calculi: a single center experience. J Endourol 24(12):2059–2066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Uguz S, Senkul T, Soydan H, Ates F et al (2012) Immediate or delayed SWL in ureteric stones: a prospective and randomized study. Urol Res 40(6):739–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Choi HJ, Jung JH, Bae J, Cho MC, Lee HW, Lee KS (2012) Usefulness of early extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in colic patients with ureteral stones. Korean J Urol 53(12):853–859

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Deliveliotis C, Chrisofos M, Albanis S et al (2003) Management and follow-up of impacted ureteral stones. Urol Int 70:269–272

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cummings JM, Boullier JA, Izenberg SD, Kitchens DM, Kothandapani RV (2000) Prediction of spontaneous ureteral calculous passage by an artificial neural network. J Urol 164(2):326–328

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Parr NJ, Pye SD, Ritchie AW, Tolley DA (1992) Mechanisms responsible for diminished fragmentation of ureteral calculi: an experimental and clinical study. J Urol 148(3 Pt 2):1079–1083

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Al-Ghazo MA, Ghalayini IF, Al-Azab RS et al (2011) Emergency ureteroscopic lithotripsy in acute renal colic caused by ureteral calculi: a retrospective study. Urol Res 39(6):497–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zargar-Shoshtari K, Anderson W, Rice M (2015) Role of emergency ureteroscopy in the management of ureteric stones: analysis of 394 cases. BJU Int 115(6):946–950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ouzaid I, Al-qahtani S, Dominique S et al (2012) A 970 Hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients’ selection for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from a prospective study. BJU Int 110(11 Pt B):E438–E442

    Google Scholar 

  33. Panesar SS, Bhandari M, Darzi A, Athanasiou T (2009) Meta-analysis: a practical decision making tool for surgeons. Int J Surg 7(4):291–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zwahlen M, Renehan A, Egger M (2008) Meta-analysis in medical research: potentials and limitations. Urol Oncol 26(3):320–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. De Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G et al (2007) A new transportable shock-wave lithotripsy machine for managing urinary stones: a single-centre experience with a dual-focus lithotripter. BJU Int 100(5):1137–1141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rassweiler JJ, Knoll T, Köhrmann KU et al (2011) Shock wave technology and application: an update. Eur Urol 59(5):784–796

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Hollingsworth JM, Norton EC, Kaufman SR, Smith RM, Wolf JS Jr, Hollenbeck BK (2013) Medical expulsive therapy versus early endoscopic stone removal for acute renal colic: an instrumental variable analysis. J Urol 190(3):882–887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dauw CA, Kaufman SR, Hollenbeck BK et al (2014) Expulsive therapy versus early endoscopic stone removal in patients with acute renal colic: a comparison of indirect costs. J Urol 191(3):673–677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Monga M (2014) When, for how long and in whom should medical expulsive therapy be used? J Urol 191(3):581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Riccardo Autorino.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arcaniolo, D., De Sio, M., Rassweiler, J. et al. Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Urolithiasis 45, 563–572 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0960-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0960-7

Keywords

  • Emergency
  • Shock wave lithotripsy
  • Ureteroscopy
  • Ureteral stone