Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How do the residual fragments after SWL affect the health-related quality of life? A critical analysis in a size-based manner

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

Abstract

This study aimed at evaluating the possible effects of residual fragments (RF) after shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) on the health-related quality of life (QOL) of the patients on a size-related basis. Eighty six patients with RF after SWL were divided into three groups: Group 1 (n:30 with fragments ≤2 mm), Group 2 (n:21 2–≤4 mm) and Group 3 (n:35 > 4 mm). During a 3-month follow-up, spontaneous passage rates, emergency department visits, mean analgesic required, additional procedures and the QOL were all evaluated. QOL was evaluated using the Short Form-36 survey. Of the 30 patients with fragments ≤2 mm all cases passed the fragments spontaneously. Of the 21 cases with fragments 2–≤4, however, 76 % were stone free. Last, of the 35 cases with fragments >4 mm, 52 % passed them spontaneously in 3 months. While no patient with fragments ≤2 mm required emergency department visit, 19 % of the cases with fragments 2–≤4 mm and 51.4 % with fragments >4 mm did require this visit. Mean analgesic need (mg) values were higher in cases with larger fragments. Evaluation of the QOL score data in a subgroup comparison base showed that cases with larger fragments had prominently lower scores during both 1- and 3-month evaluation. RF after SWL could pose an impact on the QOL of the cases in a size-related basis. While fragments ≤2 mm had nearly no impact on this aspect larger fragments could significantly affect the QOL.

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

References

  1. Bartoletti R, Cai T, Mondaini N, Melone F, Travaglini F, Carini M, Rizzo M (2007) Epidemiology and risk factors in urolithiasis. Urol Int 79(1):3–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ketabchi AA, Aziziolahi GA (2008) Prevalence of symptomatic urinary calculi in Kerman, Iran. Urol J 5(3):156–160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC (2003) Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int 63(5):1817–1823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tiselius HG (2003) Epidemiology and medical management of stone disease. BJU Int 91(8):758–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gambaro G, Reis-Santos JM, Rao N (2004) Nephrolithiasis: why doesn’t our “learning” progress? Eur Urol 45(5):547–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Roehrborn CG (2000) Acute relief or future prevention is urology ready for preventive health care? Urology 56(5):12–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Marcovich R, Smith AD (2003) Renal pelvic stones: choosing shock wave lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Int Braz J Urol 29(3):195–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moon YT, Kim SC (1993) Fate of clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with EDAP LT-01 lithotripter. J Endourol 7(6):453–456

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Perks AE, Schuler TD, Lee J, Ghiculete D, Chung DG, D’A Honey RJ, Pace KT (2008) Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 72(4):765–769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ouzaid I, Al-qahtani S, Dominique S, Hupertan V, Fernandez P, Hermieu JF, Delmas V, Ravery V (2012) A 970 Hounsfield units (HU) thresholdof kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients’ selection for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from aprospective study. BJU Int 110(11):E438–E442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Osman MM, Alfano Y, Kamp S, Haecker A, Alken P, Michel MS, Knoll T (2005) 5-year-follow-up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 47(6):860–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Raynal G, Petit J, Saint F (2009) Which efficiency index for urinary stones treatment? Urol Res 37(4):237–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bensalah K, Tuncel A, Gupta A, Raman JD, Pearle MS, Lotan Y (2008) Determinants of quality of life for patients with kidney stones. J Urol 179(6):2238–2243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Last JM, Spasoff RA, Harris SS (2001) A dictionary of epidemiology. vol 4. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 148

  15. Alonso J, Ferrer M, Gandek B, Ware JE Jr, Aaronson NK, Mosconi P, Rasmussen NK, Bullinger M, Fukuhara S, Kaasa S, Leplège A; IQOLA Project Group (2004) Health-related quality of life associated with chronic conditions in eight countries: results from the Internation. Qual Life Res 13(2):283–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mays NB, Petruckevitch A, Snowdon C (1990) Patients’ quality of life following extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculi. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 6(4):633–642

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Khaitan A, Gupta NP, Hemal AK (2002) Post-ESWL, clinically insignificant residual stones: reality or myth? Urology 59(1):20–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Penniston KL, Nakada SY (2007) Health related quality of life differs between male and female stone formers. J Urol 178(6):2435–2440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Damiano R, Autorino R, De Sio M, Cantiello F, Quarto G, Perdonà S, Sacco R, D’Armiento M (2005) Does the size of ureteral stent impact urinary symptoms and quality of life? A prospective randomized study. Eur Urol 48(4):673–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rabah DM, Alomar M, Binsaleh S (2011) Health related quality of life in ureteral stone patients: post-ureterolithiasis. Urol Res 39(5):385–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Demiral Y, Ergor G, Unal B, Semin S, Akvardar Y, Kivircik B (2006) Alptekin K (2006) Normative data and discriminative properties of short form 36 (SF-36) in Turkish urban population. BMC Public Health 9(6):247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kocyigit H, Aydemir O, Fisek G, Olmez N, Memis A (1999) Validity and reliability of Turkish version of Short form 36: a study of a patients with romatoid disorder. J Drug Ther (in Turkish) 12:102–106

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Gandek B (1993) Reliability, precision, and data quality. In: SF-36® Health Survey Manual & Interpretation Guide. Lincoln, Rhode Island, Quality Metric Incorporated 2000; pp 7: 1–7: 17

  24. Diniz DH, Blay SL, Schor N (2007) Anxiety and depression symptoms in recurrent painful renal lithiasis colic. Braz J Med Biol Res 40(7):949–955

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Buchholz NP, Meier-Padel S, Rutishauser G (1997) Minor residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: spontaneous clearance or risk factor for recurrent stone formation? J Endourol 11(4):227–232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pearle MS, Calhoun EA, Curhan GC (2005) Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis. J Urol 173(3):848–857

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Streem SB, Yost A, Mascha E (1996) Clinical implications of clinically insignificant store fragments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 155(4):1186–1190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Gupta A, Bensalah K, Cadeddu JA, Lotan Y, Pearle MS (2009) Natural history of residual fragments following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol 181(3):1163–1168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

We have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Clinic, Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Cahit Sahin, Alper Kafkasli, Cihangir A. Cetinel, Fehmi Narter, Erkin Saglam & Kemal Sarica

  2. Gömeç sok, Sabancı -2 Sitesi A1 Kat 4 Daire 24 Acıbadem, Kadıköy, Istanbul, Turkey

    Cahit Sahin

Authors
  1. Cahit Sahin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alper Kafkasli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cihangir A. Cetinel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fehmi Narter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erkin Saglam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kemal Sarica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cahit Sahin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sahin, C., Kafkasli, A., Cetinel, C.A. et al. How do the residual fragments after SWL affect the health-related quality of life? A critical analysis in a size-based manner. Urolithiasis 43, 163–170 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0727-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0727-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation