Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Which is better, fluoroscopic-guided or ultrasonic-guided shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal stones? Prospective randomized comparative study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and clinical outcomes of two different stone localization modalities (fluoroscopic or ultrasonic) in SWL treatment of pediatric renal stones.

Patients and methods

This study was conducted in the period between January 2021 and June 2022 and included 100 children aged 2–16 years who presented with radio-opaque renal pelvic stones < 20 mm. The children were divided in two groups: group I, US-guided (50 patients), and group II, FS-guided SWL (50 patients). SWL was applied under general anesthesia. The follow-up of the patients included a visit every two weeks up to three months.

Results

Even though group II's stone-free rate after one month of follow-up was higher than group I's (90% vs. 84%), no statistically significant difference was found between the groups (p = 0.749). While the success rate was higher in group II than in group I (92% vs. 86%), no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups (p = 0.338). The complication rate was 28% (14 patients) and 12% (6 patients) in Groups I and II, respectively. However, no significant difference was found between the two groups (p = 0.132).

Conclusions

SWL is a non-invasive and safe method for treating pediatric renal stones. We recommend the use of the ultrasonic focusing modality in SWL of the pediatric age group, which has similar success rates, avoiding radiation and low complication rate instead of the fluoroscopic focusing modality, which uses ionizing radiation during SWL.

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

Data availability

All data generated or analysed are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files).

References

  1. Turner BW, Reynard JM, Noble JG et al (2012) Urological stone disease trends. BJU Int 109:1082–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. D’Addessi A, Bongiovanni L, Sasso F, Gulino G, Falabella R, Bassi P (2008) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in pediatrics. J Endourol 22:1–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Aldahshoury M, Badawy AA, Saleem MD, Abolyosr A et al (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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen CJ, Hsu HC, Chung WS, Yu HJ (2009) Clinical experience with ultrasound-based real-time tracking lithotripsy in the single renal stone treatment. J Endourol 23(11):1811–1815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Richardson SRB (2011) Stem cell niches and other factors that influence bone marrow sensitivity to radiation-induced bone cancer and leukemia in children and adults. Int J Radiat Biol 87(4):343–59

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Goren MR, Goren V, Ozer C (2017) Ultrasound-guided shockwave lithotripsy reduces radiation exposure and has better outcomes for pediatric cystine stones. Int Urol 98(4):429–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chang TH, Lin WR, Tsai WK, Chiang PK, Chen M, Tseng JS, Chiu AW (2020) Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones. BMC Urol 20(1):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Goren MR, Goren V, Oze C (2017) Ultrasound-guided shockwave lithotripsy reduces radiation exposure while improving outcomes in pediatric cystine stones. Int Urol 98:429–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Villányi KK, Székely JG, Farkas LM et al (2001) Short-term changes in renal function after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children. J Urol 166:222–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ozkaya F (2019) Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy results with ultrasonic and fluoroscopic focusing in the pediatric age group; fluoroscopic focusing: how much is required? Ann Med Res 26(11):2502–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Besien J, Uvin P, Hermie I, Tailly T, Merckx L (2017) A randomized prospective study found that ultrasonography is not inferior to fluoroscopy to guide extracorporeal shock waves during the treatment of renal and upper ureteric calculi. BioMed Res Int, May 15–17

  12. Goren MR, Goren V, Ozer C (2017) Ultrasound-guided shockwave lithotripsy reduces radiation exposure and has better outcomes for pediatric cystine stones. Urol Int 98(4):429–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tekgul S, Dogan HS, Erdem E, Hoebeke P, Kocvara R, Nijman JM, Radmayr C, Silay MS, Stein R, Undre S (2015) Guidelines on Paediatric Urology

  14. Aksoy Y, Yapanolu T (2009) zbey: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy efficacy and safety in children. Eurasian J Med 41:120–125

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Landau EH (2015) Contemporary stone management in children. Eur Urol Suppl 14:12–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Handa RK, McAteer JA, Connors BA, Liu Z, Lingeman JE, Evan AP (2012) Optimizing an escalating shockwave amplitude treatment strategy to protect the kidney from injury during shockwave lithotripsy. BJU Int 110(11):E1041–E1047

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Okada A, Yasui T, Taguchi K, Niimi K, Hirose Y, Hamamoto S, Ando R, Kubota Y, Umemoto Y, Tozawa K et al (2013) The impact of official technical training for urologists on the efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy. Urolithiasis 41(6):487–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pace KT, Ghiculete D, Harju M, Honey RJ (2005) Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol 174(2):595–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sandilos P, Tsalafoutas I, Koutsokalis G et al (2006) Radiation doses to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. Health Phys 90(6):583–587

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, South Valley University, Qena, Egypt

    Mohammad S. Abdel-Kader, Atef Fathy, Mohmoud Moubarek & Ahmed Abolyosr

Authors
  1. Mohammad S. Abdel-Kader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Atef Fathy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohmoud Moubarek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmed Abolyosr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MSA-K: Project development, data collection, manuscript writing and revision. MM: Data collection and analysis. AF: Manuscript revision. AA: Data collection and analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad S. Abdel-Kader.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

The research on human patients after informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdel-Kader, M.S., Fathy, A., Moubarek, M. et al. Which is better, fluoroscopic-guided or ultrasonic-guided shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal stones? Prospective randomized comparative study. World J Urol 41, 1175–1180 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04313-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04313-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation