Long-Term Stone-Free Rates After Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy

  • Wolfgang Diederichs
  • J. Graff
  • J. Pastor
  • H. Schulze
  • T. Senge

Abstract

One thousand three patients with upper urinary tract calculi were treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). On discharge, 35.2% of patients were stone free, 42.4% had residual fragments less than 3 mm, and 461 patients (46%) reported spontaneous passage of fragments mainly during the first three months after ESWL treatment.

All patients were reevaluated after a mean of 19.1 months. The overall stone-free rate was 72.3%. There was no difference between primary and recurrent stone formers. Lower calyceal stones had the worst stone-free rate (57.8%) and also suffered new stone growth in 58.4%. Almost identical results were obtained for stones other than in the lower pole calix when, on discharge, fragments were found in the lower pole calix. Multiple stones, especially when located in a dendritic collecting system, yielded a stone-free rate of 64% with about 90% of patients revealing regrowth of residual calculi. Stone analysis showed stone growth mainly occurred in carbonate apatite and struvite stones. Follow-up IVPs were normal in 97%. Readmission was necessary in 57 patients.

Overall, almost one-fourth of patients still had residual fragments after a mean follow-up of 19.1 months. Stone-free rates were mainly influenced by the primary stone location, the number of stones and the anatomy of the collecting system.

Keywords

Rubber Oxalate Apatite 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lingeman JE, Newman DM, Mertz JHO, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the Methodist Hospital of Indiana experience. J Urol 135: 1134, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Riehle RA, Wair WR, Vaughn ED: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi: one year’s experience at a single center. JAMA 255: 2043, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drach GW, Dretler SP, Fair WR, et al: Report of the United States cooperative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 135: 1127, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Newman DM, Scott JW, Lingeman JE: Two-year follow-up of patients treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Endourol 2: 163, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmiedt E and Chaussy C: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of kidney and ureteric stones. Urol Int 39: 193.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schneider HJ and Seyfart HH: Investigations on flow dynamics and microstructure and their contribution to urolith genesis. Eur Urol 5: 32, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schulz E, Hengst E, Brundig P, et al: Disturbed urinary transport in the pelvi-caliceal system in calcium oxalate stone patients. Urol Res 15: 109, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burns JR and Finlayson B: Why some people have stone disease and others do not. In Roth RA and Finlayson B (eds): Stones: Clinical Management of Urolithiasis. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, Vol. 6 International Perspectives in Urology, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Diederichs
    • 1
  • J. Graff
    • 1
  • J. Pastor
    • 1
  • H. Schulze
    • 1
  • T. Senge
    • 1
  1. 1.Urologische AbteilungMarienhospital II, Universitats KlinikHerne IWest Germany

Personalised recommendations