Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi

  • SYMPOSIUM PAPER
  • Published:
Urological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is considered the first line treatment for the majority of patients with renal and ureteric calculi, with success rates from contemporary series varying from 60 to 90%. Success is dependent on many patient and stone-related factors. We conducted a retrospective analysis of mean stone CT density (MSD) and skin-to-stone distance (SSD) to determine their influence on the success of SWL of renal and ureteric calculi. Data from all patients treated at the St. Michael’s Hospital Lithotripsy Unit from May 2004 to June 2009 were reviewed. Analysis was restricted to those patients with a pre-treatment non-contrast CT scan conducted at our center demonstrating a solitary renal or ureteric calculus ≤20 mm in maximal diameter. Successful treatment of renal stones was defined as those patients who were stone free or had asymptomatic, clinically insignificant residual fragments ≤4 mm in diameter, as measured by KUB X-ray, 3 months after a single SWL treatment. Successful treatment of ureteric stones was defined as being stone free on KUB X-ray, 2-weeks post-SWL. Demographic, stone, patient, treatment and follow-up data were collected from a prospective database and review of CT and KUB imaging by two independent urologists and one radiologist. Data were analyzed with logistic regression, Chi square analysis and ANOVA where appropriate. 422 patients (69.7% male) with a mean age of 51.4 years (SD 12.9) and mean BMI 27.0 kg/m2 (SD 4.9) were analyzed. Mean stone size was 78.9 mm2 (SD 77.3) for ureteral stones and 66.1 mm2 (SD 63.2) for renal stones, with 95 (43.6%) of the renal stones located in the lower pole. The single-treatment success rates for ureteral and renal stones were 62.3% and 68.8%, respectively. On univariate analysis, predictors of SWL success, regardless of stone location, were age (p = 0.01), BMI (p = 0.01), stone size (p < 0.01), MSD (p < 0.01) and SSD (p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, MSD >900 HU (OR = 0.49, CI: 0.32–0.75) and SSD >110 mm (OR = 0.49, CI: 0.31–0.78) were both significant predictors of outcome. We have identified in a large series of renal and ureteric calculi that both MSD and SSD can reliably predict SWL outcomes. This data can be used in combination with other patient and stone-related factors to facilitate optimal treatment-based decisions and provide patients with more accurate single-treatment success rates for 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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dalla PL, Pozzi-Mucelli R, Stacul F (2001) Present-day imaging of patients with renal colic. Eur Radiol 11:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Anderson KR, Bove P, Covey AM, Rosenfield AT et al (1998) The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urol 159:735

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Williams JC Jr, Kim SC, Zarse CA, McAteer JA, Lingeman JE (2004) Progress in the use of helical CT for imaging urinary calculi. J Endourol 18:937

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck AC, Gallucci M et al (2007) Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 52:1610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson DB, Lowry PS, Schluckebier JA, Kryger JV, Nakada SY (2003) University of Wisconsin experience using the Doli S lithotriptor. Urology 62:410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Park H, Park M, Park T (1998) Two-year experience with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy v ureteroscopic manipulation. J Endourol 12:501

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Coz F, Orvieto M, Bustos M, Lyng R, Stein C, Hinrichs A et al (2000) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of 2000 urinary calculi with the modulith SL-20: success and failure according to size and location of stones. J Endourol 14:239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J et al (2001) Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol 166:2072

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 174:595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Abe T, Akakura K, Kawaguchi M, Ueda T, Ichikawa T, Ito H et al (2005) Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large-scale study at a single institution. J Endourol 19:768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. White W, Klein F (2006) Five-year clinical experience with the Dornier Delta lithotriptor. Urology 68:28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, Asakura H, Miyajima A, Oya M et al (2006) Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 176:1453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nakada SY, Hoff DG, Attai S, Heisey D, Blankenbaker D, Pozniak M (2000) Determination of stone composition by noncontrast spiral computed tomography in the clinical setting. Urology 55:816

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang LJ, Wong YC, Chuang CK, Chu SH, Chen CS, See LC et al (2005) Predictions of outcomes of renal stones after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy from stone characteristics determined by unenhanced helical computed tomography: a multivariate analysis. Eur Radiol 15:2238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Magnuson WJ, Tomera KM, Lance RS (2005) Hounsfield unit density accurately predicts ESWL success. Alaska Med 47:6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT Jr, Nakada SY (2005) Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology 66:941

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rush E, Plank L, Chandu V, Laulu M, Simmons D, Swinburn B et al (2004) Body size, body composition, and fat distribution: a comparison of young New Zealand men of European, Pacific Island, and Asian Indian ethnicities. N Z Med J 117:U1203

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O, Sheir KZ (2007) A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomography. Eur Urol 51:1688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ng CF, Siu DY, Wong A, Goggins W, Chan ES, Wong KT (2009) Development of a scoring system from noncontrast computerized tomography measurements to improve the selection of upper ureteral stone for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 181:1151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Perks AE, Schuler TD, Lee J, Ghiculete D, Chung DG, D’A Honey RJ et al (2008) Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 72:765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Saw KC, McAteer JA, Fineberg NS, Monga AG, Chua GT, Lingeman JE et al (2000) Calcium stone fragility is predicted by helical CT attenuation values. J Endourol 14:471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Joseph P, Mandal AK, Singh SK, Mandal P, Sankhwar SN, Sharma SK (2002) Computerized tomography attenuation value of renal calculus: can it predict successful fragmentation of the calculus by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A preliminary study. J Urol 167:1968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gupta NP, Ansari MS, Kesarvani P, Kapoor A, Mukhopadhyay S (2005) Role of computed tomography with no contrast medium enhancement in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. BJU Int 95:1285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yoshida S, Hayashi T, Ikeda J, Yoshinaga A, Ohno R, Ishii N et al (2006) Role of volume and attenuation value histogram of urinary stone on noncontrast helical computed tomography as predictor of fragility by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 68:33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Perks AE, Gotto G, Teichman JM (2007) Shock wave lithotripsy correlates with stone density on preoperative computerized tomography. J Urol 178:912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Weld KJ, Montiglio C, Morris MS, Bush AC, Cespedes RD (2007) Shock wave lithotripsy success for renal stones based on patient and stone computed tomography characteristics. Urology 70:1043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kacker R, Zhao L, Macejko A, Thaxton CS, Stern J, Liu JJ et al (2008) Radiographic parameters on noncontrast computerized tomography predictive of shock wave lithotripsy success. J Urol 179:1866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jacobs BL, Smaldone MC, Smaldone AM, Ricchiuti DJ, Averch TD (2008) Effect of skin-to-stone distance on shockwave lithotripsy success. J Endourol 22:1623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bandi G, Meiners RJ, Pickhardt PJ, Nakada SY (2009) Stone measurement by volumetric three-dimensional computed tomography for predicting the outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. BJU Int 103:524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Patel T, Kozakowski K, Hruby G, Gupta M (2009) Skin to stone distance is an independent predictor of stone-free status following shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol 23:1383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Williams JC Jr, Zarse CA, Jackson ME, Lingeman JE, McAteer JA (2007) Using helical CT to predict stone fragility in shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). In: Renal Stone Disease, 1st Annual International Urolithiasis Research Symposium. AIP Conf Proc 900:326

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Joshua D. Wiesenthal, Daniela Ghiculete, R. John D’A Honey & Kenneth T. Pace

  2. 61 Queen St. E., Suite 9-106, Toronto, ON, M5C 2T2, Canada

    Kenneth T. Pace

Authors
  1. Joshua D. Wiesenthal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniela Ghiculete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. John D’A Honey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kenneth T. Pace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth T. Pace.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wiesenthal, J.D., Ghiculete, D., John D’A Honey, R. et al. Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi. Urol Res 38, 307–313 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0295-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0295-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation