Abstract
This retrospective study aimed to evaluate whether there was still a place for ESWL therapy in the endourological era. From 1988 to 2018, ESWL therapy was performed with 3 successive types of lithotripters in our hospital. From 1988 to 1998, the electrohydraulic lithotripter NS-15 was used, and the electromagnetic lithotripter HK-V was put to use in 1999. Since 2010, the electromagnetic lithotripter HK-Vm has been used. Over the 30-year period, 16,969 urolithiasis patients underwent ESWL therapy, including 124 paediatric cases and 178 special cases. The stone clearance rate (SCR) and postoperative complications in the 3 lithotripter groups were recorded and analysed. The SCR was estimated by ultrasonography or plain X-ray, while the complications were recorded by the modified Clavien grading system. The primary stone clearance rate (pSCR) of ureteral and renal stones was significantly improved in the HK-Vm group compared with the NS-15 and HK-V groups. The final stone clearance rate (fSCR) of lower calyx stones was considerably higher in the HK-Vm group (55.9%) than in the NS-15 (41.1%) and HK-V (44.1%) groups. Most complications were grade I and II, while the incidence of grade III and above complications was less than 3%. Additionally, the fSCR in paediatric and special cases ranged from 66.5% to 83.5%, with no record of severe complications. As our data showed, ESWL was effective and safe for most urolithiasis patients, including paediatric patients and special cases. Therefore, ESWL is still the major treatment option in the current endourological era.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- ESWL:
-
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy
- FUR:
-
Flexible ureteroscopy
- PCNL:
-
Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy
- pSCR:
-
Primary stone clearance rate
- fSCR:
-
Final stone clearance rate
References
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. 24:CD007044.
Rassweiler J, Rieker P, Rassweiler-Seyfried MC (2020) Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy: is it still valid in the era of robotic endourology? Can it be more efficient? Curr Opin Urol 30:120–129
Kadlec AO, Greco KA, Fridirici ZC, Hart ST, Vellos TG, Turk TM (2013) Comparison of complication rates for unilateral and bilateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) using a modified Clavien grading system. BJU Int 111:E243-248
Bas O, Bakirtas H, Sener NC, Ozturk U, Tuygun C, Goktug HN, Imamoglu MA (2014) Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones. Urolithiasis 42:115–120
Basulto-Martínez M, Klein I, Gutiérrez-Aceves J (2019) The role of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the future of stone management. Curr Opin Urol 29:96–102
Badawy AA, Saleem MD, Abolyosr A, Aldahshoury M, Elbadry MS, Abdalla MA, Abuzeid AM (2012) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as first line treatment for urinary tract stones in children: outcome of 500 cases. Int Urol Nephrol 44:661–666
Ather MH, Nazim SM, Sulaiman MN (2009) Efficacy of semirigid ureteroscopy with pneumatic lithotripsy for ureteral stone surface area of greater than 30 mm2. J Endourol 23:619–622
Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G, Krombach P, Bach T, Häcker A, Alken P, Michel MS (2009) Does open stone surgery still play a role in the treatment of urolithiasis? Data of a primary urolithiasis center. J Endourol 23:1209–1212
Doizi S, Traxer O (2018) Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks. Urolithiasis 46:47–58
Ghani KR, Andonian S, Bultitude M, Desai M, Giusti G, Okhunov Z, Preminger GM, de la Rosette J (2016) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: update, trends, and future directions. Eur Urol 70:382–396
Milligan M, Berent AC (2019) Medical and interventional management of upper urinary tract uroliths. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 49:157–174
McClinton S, Cameron S, Starr K et al (2018) TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 22:286
Seklehner S, Laudano MA, Jamzadeh A, Del Pizzo JJ, Chughtai B, Lee RK (2014) Trends and inequalities in the surgical management of ureteric calculi in the USA. BJU Int 113:476–483
Jeong US, Lee S, Kang J, Han DH, Park KH, Baek M (2013) Factors affecting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for unilateral urinary stone in children: a 17-year single-institute experience. Korean J Urol 54:460–466
Semerci B, Verit A, Nazli O, Ilbey O, Ozyurt C, Cikili N (1997) The role of ESWL in the treatment of calculi with anomalous kidneys. Eur Urol 31:302–304
Srivastava A, Bansal R, Srivastava A, Chaturvedi S, Ranjan P, Ansari MS, Yadav A, Kapoor R (2012) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in polycystic kidney disease: is it safe and effective? Int Urol Nephrol 44:725–730
Vuksanovic A, Micic S, Petronic V, Bojanic N (1997) Solitary kidney stone treatment by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 31:305–310
Perez-Ardavin J, Lorenzo L, Caballer-Tarazona V et al (2020) Comparative analysis of direct and indirect costs of two minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of renal/ureteral calculi smaller than 2 cm. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) 44:505–511
Constanti M, Calvert RC, Thomas K, Dickinson A, Carlisle S (2020) Cost analysis of ureteroscopy (URS) vs extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the management of ureteric stones <10 mm in adults: a UK perspective. BJU Int 125:457–466
Talso M, Tefik T, Mantica G, Rodriguez Socarras M, Kartalas Goumas I, Somani BK, Esperto F (2019) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: current knowledge and future perspectives. Minerva Urol Nefrol 71:365–372
Bach C, Karaolides T, Buchholz N (2012) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: What is new? Arab J Urol 10:289–295
Leighton TG, Fedele F, Coleman AJ, McCarthy C, Ryves S, Hurrell AM, De Stefano A, White PR (2008) A passive acoustic device for real-time monitoring of the efficacy of shockwave lithotripsy treatment. Ultrasound Med Biol 34:1651–1665
Pradère B, Doizi S, Proietti S, Brachlow J, Traxer O (2018) Evaluation of guidelines for surgical management of urolithiasis. J Urol 199:1267–1271
Junbo L, Yugen L, Guo J, Jing H, Ruichao Y, Tao W (2019) Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole renal stones 10–20 mm: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Urol J 16:97–106
Zhang H, Hong TY, Li G, Jiang N, Hu C, Cui X, Chu C, Zhao JL (2019) Comparison of the efficacy of ultra-mini PCNL, flexible ureteroscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy on the treatment of 1–2 cm lower pole renal calculi. Urol Int 102:153–159
Li X, Long Q, Cheng X, He D (2014) Shock wave induces biological renal damage by activating excessive inflammatory responses in rat model. Inflammation 37:1317–1325
Jeon BH, Jang JH, Oh JH, Oh SY, Lee SJ, Kim SE, Kim CW, Choe JW, Lee KJ (2009) Kidney rupture after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: report of a case. J Emerg Med 37:13–14
Acknowledgements
The abstract of our data was presented as a poster at the 34th EAU congress in Barcelona, 2019. It was titled “What’s the role of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the endoscopic era?” -- a retrospective review of ESWL for urinary tract calculi in the past thirty years.” This abstract can be accessed at https://resource-centre.uroweb.org/resource. center/eau19/187016/Abstract.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
XC: supervise the study and interpretation of data. JC: operation and record the data. XZ: operation and record the data. QL: acquisition and analysis. HH: revised the paper. XL: designed the study and drafted the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Ethical standards
All authors have seen the manuscript and approved its submission to your journal. The study was approved by our institutional review board and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, X., Chen, J., Zhou, X. et al. Is there a place for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the endoscopic era?. Urolithiasis 50, 369–374 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01307-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01307-4