Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10–20 mm) renal stones

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

Abstract

Many centres favour endourological management over shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the management of moderate-sized (10–20 mm) renal stones. International guidelines support all available modalities for the treatment of these stones. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of SWL in the treatment of 10- to 20-mm renal stones. From January 2013 to October 2014, all patients with a renal stone measuring between 10 and 20 mm in maximum diameter on CT scan that were eligible for lithotripsy were included. 130 consecutive patients were evaluated. Demographics, location of stone within the kidney, number of SWL sessions and treatment outcomes were analysed. Treatment success was classified into complete stone clearance and the presence of clinically insignificant residual fragments <4 mm (CIRF). 119 patients (92 %) completed treatment and radiological follow-up. Eleven patients were excluded due to incomplete follow-up data. The mean age was 56.8 (23–88). Male to female ratio was 1.9:1 (78:41) and the mean BMI was 28.4 (17.9–58). The mean stone size was 12.8 mm (10–14 mm: n = 87; 15–20 mm: n = 32). The mean number of treatments was 2.14 and 2.82 for stones 10–14 and 15–20 mm, respectively. Overall treatment success was 66.4 % (combined complete stone clearance and CIRFs). Subdivided by stone size <15 mm and ≥15 mm, the success rate was 70.4 and 53.1 %, respectively. The treatment success by stone location was 65, 64 and 70 % for upper, middle and lower pole stones, respectively and 67 % for PUJ stones. For those who failed SWL treatment, the majority 50 % (n = 20) were managed expectantly, 42.5 % (n = 17) required URS, and 7.5 % (n = 3) required PNL. This study suggests that SWL has an efficacy for treating larger renal stones (10–20 mm) that is equivalent to success rates for smaller stones in other series. As a low-risk and non-invasive procedure SWL should be considered a first-line treatment for these stones.

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

References

  1. Ziemba JB, Matlaga BR (2015) Guideline of guidelines: kidney stones. BJU Int 116(2):184–189. doi:10.1111/bju.13080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Srivastava A, Chipde SS (2013) Management of 1–2 cm renal stones. Indian J Urol J Urol Soc India 29(3):195–199. doi:10.4103/0970-1591.117280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Karatag T, Tepeler A, Silay MS, Bodakci MN, Buldu I, Daggulli M, Hatipoglu NK, Istanbulluoglu MO, Armagan A (2015) A comparison of two percutaneous nephrolithotomy techniques for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones of sizes 10–20 mm: microperc vs miniperc. Urology 85(5):1015–1018. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.02.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hatipoglu NK, Sancaktutar AA, Tepeler A, Bodakci MN, Penbegul N, Atar M, Bozkurt Y, Soylemez H, Silay MS, Istanbulluoglu MO, Akman T, Armagan A (2013) Comparison of shockwave lithotripsy and microperc for treatment of kidney stones in children. J Endourol Endourol Soc 27(9):1141–1146. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tepeler A, Armagan A, Sancaktutar AA, Silay MS, Penbegul N, Akman T, Hatipoglu NK, Ersoz C, Erdem MR, Akcay M (2013) The role of microperc in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi. J Endourol Endourol Soc 27(1):13–18. doi:10.1089/end.2012.0422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M (2014) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007044.pub3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cecen K, Karadag MA, Demir A, Bagcioglu M, Kocaaslan R, Sofikerim M (2014) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper/middle calyx kidney stones of 10–20 mm: a retrospective analysis of 174 patients. SpringerPlus 3:557. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-557

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Estrade V, Bensalah K, Bringer JP, Chabannes E, Carpentier X, Conort P, Denis E, Dore B, Gautier Jr, Hadjadj H, Hubet J, Hoznek A, Lechevallier E, Meria P, Mozer P, Saussine C, Yonneau L, Traxer O (2013) Place of the flexible ureterorenoscopy first choice for the treatment of kidney stones. Survey results practice committee of the AFU lithiasis completed in 2011. Progres en urologie: journal de l’Association francaise d’urologie et de la Societe francaise d’urologie 23(1):22–28. doi:10.1016/j.purol.2012.09.003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. White W, Klein F (2006) Five-year clinical experience with the Dornier Delta lithotriptor. Urology 68(1):28–32. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.01.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zehnder P, Roth B, Birkhauser F, Schneider S, Schmutz R, Thalmann GN, Studer UE (2011) A prospective randomised trial comparing the modified HM3 with the MODULITH(R) SLX-F2 lithotripter. Eur Urol 59(4):637–644. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.01.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Micali S, Sighinolfi MC, Grande M, Rivalta M, De Stefani S, Bianchi G (2009) Dornier Lithotripter S 220 F EMSE: the first report of over 1000 treatments. Urology 74(6):1211–1214. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Chandhoke P, Lingeman JE, Denstedt JD, Kahn R, Assimos DG, Nakada SY (1998) Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol Endourol Soc 12(2):113–119

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ (2012) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20 mm. BJU Int 110(6):898–902. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10961.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zheng C, Yang H, Luo J, Xiong B, Wang H, Jiang Q (2015) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment for renal stones 1–2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. doi:10.1007/s00240-015-0799-8

    Google Scholar 

  15. Neisius A, Wollner J, Thomas C, Roos FC, Brenner W, Hampel C, Preminger GM, Thuroff JW, Gillitzer R (2013) Treatment efficacy and outcomes using a third generation shockwave lithotripter. BJU Int 112(7):972–981. doi:10.1111/bju.12159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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(1):63–67. doi:10.1007/s11255-005-3155-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Madbouly K, Sheir KZ, Elsobky E, Eraky I, Kenawy M (2002) Risk factors for the formation of a steinstrasse after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a statistical model. J Urol 167(3):1239–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Skolarikos A, Alivizatos G, de la Rosette J (2006) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 25 years later: complications and their prevention. European urology 50(5):981–990. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.01.045 (discussion 990)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Stone Group, Department of Urology, Churchill Hospital, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK

    Vera Y. Chung & Benjamin W. Turney

Authors
  1. Vera Y. Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin W. Turney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vera Y. Chung.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding is required for this study.

Conflict of interest

Author Vera Chung declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Benjamin Turney declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chung, V.Y., Turney, B.W. The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10–20 mm) renal stones. Urolithiasis 44, 441–444 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0857-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0857-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation