Advertisement

Is the Liberal Use of Double-J Ureteral Stents Justified for Outpatient Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy?

  • Woody N. York

Abstract

The liberal use of double-J ureteral stents has been encouraged at the Bay Area Renal Stone Center in an effort to prevent complications and avoid hospitalizations and auxiliary procedures following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL*) utilizing a Dornier HM3 lithotripter. The rationale for the frequent use of double-J stents resulted from several factors. When this outpatient ESWL center opened, ESWL generally was considered an inpatient procedure. The large number (90) of treating urologists initially had limited experience in ESWL. The Stone Center serviced a large geographic area (radius 150 miles) with a significant number of patients requiring substantial travel time following the shock wave procedure.

Seven hundred eighty-three consecutive patients with an adequate three-month follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Forty-four percent of the patients required double-J stent insertion prior to the ESWL date for a variety of reasons (i.e., colic, obstruction, or urosepsis). Twenty-eight percent of patients had stents inserted immediately prior to the ESWL with an additional 8% requiring ureteral catheters for stone manipulation or for improved visualization of stones.

Of patients with stents, 2.6% required parenteral injections of pain medications post ESWL. The post-ESWL hospitalization rate of patients with stents was only 4.3%, and the post-ESWL auxiliary procedure rate was 1.7%. Retreatment was required in 3.8% of patients.

In this series, and with the outpatient approach to treatment, the liberal use of double-J ureteral stents appears to have been justified. The disadvantages of stents and future considerations of their prior use also are discussed.

Keywords

Shock Wave Shock Wave Lithotripsy Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Ureteral Stone Ureteral Stents 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chaussy CG and Schmiedt E: Shock wave treatment for stones in the upper urinary tract. Urol Clin NAm 10: 743, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  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.
    Libby J, Meacham R, Griffith D: The role of silicone ureteral stents in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of large renal calculi. J Urol 139: 15, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riehle RA: Selective use of ureteral stents before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Clin N Am 3: 499, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fuchs G, Chaussy C, Riehle RA: Treatment of ureteral stones. In Riehle RA, Newman RC (eds): Principles ofExtracorporeal ShockWave Lithotripsy. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaussy CG: ESWL: past, present and future. J Endourol 2: 97, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manzone DJ and Chion B: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of stones in the upper, mid, and lower ureter. J Endourol 2: 107, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Francesca F, Di Girolamo V, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in solitary kidneys. J Endourol 1: 197, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thomas R, Robert J, Sloane B, et al: Effect of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on renal function. J Endourol 2: 141, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bregg K and Riehle RA: Morbidity associated with internal ureteral stents after shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 141: 510, 1989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saltzman B: Ureteral stents, indications, variations, and complications. Urol Clin N Am 14: 481, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shabsigh R, Gleeson MJ, Griffith DP: The benefits of stenting on a more-or-less routine basis prior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Clin N Am 15: 493, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller K and Hautmann R: Treatment of distal ureteral calculi with ESWL: experience with more than 100 consecutive cases. World J Urol 5: 259, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rassweiler J, Schmidt A, Bub P, et al: The role of ESWL for ureteric stone. In Coptcoat MJ, Miller RA, Wickham JEA (eds): Lithotripsy II. London: BDI Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lingeman JE, Shirrell WL, Newman DM, et al: Management of upper ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 138: 720, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans R, Wingfield D, et al: Ureteral stone manipulation before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 139: 33, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whelan JP and Finlayson B: Use of retrograde lavage catheter during ESWL treatments. Urology 33: 31, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Woody N. York
    • 1
  1. 1.Bay Area Renal Stone CenterSt. PetersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations