Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To compare success and complication rates of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNL) according to modified clavien grading system of renal pelvis stones between 1 and 2 cm. The results of 149 patients were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were divided into three groups as 52 for SWL, 47 for F-URS and 50 for PNL. Complications were evaluated by modified Clavien grading system. In the first group, stone-free rates after a mean of 2, 6 sessions was 86 % (45/52). In Group 2, this ratio was 91.4 % (43/47), and in Group 3, it was 98 % (49/50). The success rate in Group 3 was significantly higher than other groups. Complication rates for Group 1, 2 and 3 were 7.6 % (4/52), 6.3 % (3/47) and 12 % (6/50), respectively. Although PNL was the most successful technique compared with other techniques, complications were also higher in this group. Even though PNL is the most successful, it should be performed for selected patient groups and indications should be carefully evaluated.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

SWL:

Shock wave lithotripsy

F-URS:

Flexible ureterorenoscopy

PNL:

Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy

KUB:

Kidney–ureter–bladder

References

  1. Johnson CM, Wilson DM, O’Fallon WM, Malek RS, Kurland LT (1979) Renal stone epidemiology: a 25-year study in Rochester Minnesota. Kidney Int 16:624–631

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Matlaga BR, Assimos DG (2002) Changing indications of open stone surgery. Urology 59:490–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hesse A, Brandle E, Wilbert D, Kohrmann KU, Alken P (2003) Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol 44:709–713

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen J, Cohen S, Grasso M (2013) Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of large, complex intrarenal and proximal ureteral calculi. BJU Int 111:E127–E131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K (2013) Guidelines on urolithiasis. European Association of Urology. http://www.uroweb.org/publications/eau-guidelines/

  6. Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111:518–526

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Deem S, Defade B, Modak A, Emmett M, Martinez F, Davalos J (2011) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for moderate sized kidney stones. Urology 78:739–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck C, Gallucci M, Knoll T, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Sarica K, Turk C, Wolf JS Jr (2007) 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 178:2418–2434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ, Pace KT (2011) A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol 25:481–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Al-Ansari A, As-Sadiq K, Al-Said S, Younis N, Jaleel OA, Shokeir AA (2006) Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol 38:63–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Elkoushy MA, Hassan JA, Morehouse DD, Anidjar M, Andonian S (2011) Factors determining stone-free rate in shock wave lithotripsy using standard focus of Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter. Urology 78:759–763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, Asakura H, Miyajima A, Oya M, Ohigashi T, Murai M (2006) Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 176:1453–1456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, Nyhuis AW, Woods JR (1994) Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 151:663–667

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ, Pace KT (2010) 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang LJ, Wong YC, Chuang CK, Chu SH, Chen CS, See LC, Chiang YJ (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 15:2238–2243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Abe T, Akakura K, Kawaguchi M, Ueda T, Ichikawa T, Ito H, Nozumi K, Suzuki K (2005) Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large-scale study at a single institution. J Endourol 19:768–773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Egilmez T, Tekin MI, Gonen M, Kilinc F, Goren R, Ozkardes H (2007) Efficacy and safety of a new-generation shockwave lithotripsy machine in the treatment of single renal or ureteral stones: experience with 2670 patients. J Endourol 21:23–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Afane JS, Olweny EO, Bercowsky E, Sundaram CP, Dunn MD, Shalhav AL, McDougall EM, Clayman RV (2000) Flexible ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr. J Urol 164:1164–1168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hollenbeck BK, Spencer SL, Faerber GJ (2000) Use of a working channel catheter during flexible ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. J Urol 163:1808–1809

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Atis G, Gurbuz C, Arikan O, Canat L, Kilic M, Caskurlu T (2012) Ureteroscopic management with laser lithotripsy of renal pelvic stones. J Endourol 26:983–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Geavlete P, Seyed Aghamiri SA, Multescu R (2006) Retrograde flexible ureteroscopic approach for pyelocaliceal calculi. Urol J 3:15–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Nita G, Mirciulescu V, Cauni V (2006) Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol 20:179–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Harmon WJ, Sershon PD, Blute ML, Patterson DE, Segura JW (1997) Ureteroscopy: current practice and long-term complications. J Urol 157:28–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eisenberger F, Rassweiler J, Kallert B, Bub P (1989) Treatment of staghorn calculi. Strategies and results of the combined use of new technics. Urol A 28:138–144

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gu Z, Qi J, Shen H, Liu J, Chen J (2010) Percutaneous nephroscopic with holmium laser and ultrasound lithotripsy for complicated renal calculi. Lasers Med Sci 25:577–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, Bapat S, Desai M (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18:715–722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Streem SB, Lammert G (1992) Long-term efficacy of combination therapy for struvite staghorn calculi. J Urol 147:563–566

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Meria P, Milcent S, Desgrandchamps F, Mongiat-Artus P, Duclos JM, Teillac P (2005) Management of pelvic stones larger than 20 mm: laparoscopic transperitoneal pyelolithotomy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urol Int 75:322–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Resorlu B, Unsal A, Tepeler A, Atis G, Tokatli Z, Oztuna D, Armagan A, Gurbuz C, Caskurlu T, Saglam R (2012) Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children with moderate-size kidney stones: results of multi-institutional analysis. Urology 80:519–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Collins JW, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney A (2004) Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int 93:1023–1026

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hyams ES, Matlaga BR (2013) Cost-effectiveness treatment strategies for stone disease for the practicing urologist. Urol Clin North Am 40:129–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

No competing financial interests exist.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Okan Bas

  2. Department of Urology, Ministry of Health, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazid Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Hasan Bakirtas, Ufuk Ozturk, Can Tuygun, H. N. Goksel Goktug & M. Abdurrahim Imamoglu

  3. Department of Urology, Ministry of Health, Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey

    Nevzat Can Sener

Authors
  1. Okan Bas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hasan Bakirtas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nevzat Can Sener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ufuk Ozturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Can Tuygun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H. N. Goksel Goktug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Abdurrahim Imamoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Okan Bas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bas, O., Bakirtas, H., Sener, N.C. et al. Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones. Urolithiasis 42, 115–120 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0615-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0615-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation