Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Stenting or not prior to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? Results of a prospective randomized study

  • Urology – Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the need for pre-treatment stenting in patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) for ureteral stones sized 4–10 mm.

Methods

A prospective randomized study was conducted between September 2009 and March 2011. Included 156 patients randomized in stented and non-stented groups and underwent a maximum of 3 ESWL sessions. Radiographic follow-up was used to assess the stone fragmentation and clearance. Results were compared in terms of stone-free rates, post-treatment morbidity and complications.

Results

Overall efficacy was 76.9%. Stone-free rates were statistically significantly lower (P = 0.026) in the stented group (68.6%) compared to the non-stented ones (83.7%). Furthermore, stenting was significantly correlated with post-treatment lower urinary tract symptoms (P ≤ 0.001), need for more ESWL sessions (P = 0.019) and possibility for operation due to ESWL failure (P = 0.026). A multivariate analysis was conducted to identify the parameters which may predict complete stone removal after ESWL. Stone size (P = 0.026), stone location (P = 0.011) and stenting (P = 0.007) were the most significant factors.

Conclusions

ESWL is an efficient and safe treatment for 4- to 10-mm ureteral stones. Pre-treatment stenting is limiting stone-free rates and is significantly influencing post-ESWL morbidity and quality of life in a negative manner, while it contributes minimally to the prophylaxis of complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Dretler SP, Kahn RI, Lingeman JE, Macaluso JN Jr (1997) Ureteral stones clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. The american urological association. J Urol 158:1915–1921

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang M, Shi Q, Wang X, Yang K, Yang R (2011) Prediction of outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteric calculi. Urol Res 39:51–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ghoneim IA, El-Ghoneimy MN, El-Naggar AE, Hammoud KM, El-Gammal MY, Morsi AA (2010) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in impacted upper ureteral stones: a prospective randomized comparison between stented and non-stented techniques. Urology 75:45–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Whitfield HN (1999) The management of ureteric stones. Part II: therapy. BJU Int 84:916–921

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kirkali Z, Esen AA, Hayran M, Gencbay A, Gidener S, Güven H, Güre A (1995) The effect of extracorporeal electromagnetic shock waves on the morphology and contractility of rabbit ureter. J Urol 154:1939–1943

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Salman M, Al-Ansari AA, Talib RA, El-Malik El-F, Al-Bozaom IA, Shokeir AA (2007) Prediction of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteric stones. Int Urol Nephrol 39:85–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Abdel-Khalek M, Sheir K, Elsobky E, Showkey S, Kenawy M (2003) Prognostic factors for extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of ureteric stones—a multivariate analysis study. Scand J Urol Nephrol 37:413–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Salem HK (2009) A prospective randomized study comparing shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi. Urology 74:1216–1221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, Lin CL, Chen CS (2004) Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol 172:1899–1902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hofbauer J, Tuerk C, Höbarth K, Hasun R, Marberger M (1993) ESWL in situ or ureteroscopy for ureteric stones? World J Urol 11:54–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gnanapragasam VJ, Ramsden PD, Murthy LS, Thomas DJ (1999) Primary in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of ureteric calculi: results with a third-generation lithotripter. BJU Int 84:770–774

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Sheir KZ (2006) Is pre-shock wave lithotripsy stenting necessary for ureteral stones with moderate or severe hydronephrosis? J Urol 176:2059–2062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nakada SY, Pearle MS, Soble JJ, Gardner SM, McClennan BL, Clayman RV (1995) Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of middle ureteral stones: are ureteral stents necessary? Urology 46:649–652

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stavros Sfoungaristos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sfoungaristos, S., Polimeros, N., Kavouras, A. et al. Stenting or not prior to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? Results of a prospective randomized study. Int Urol Nephrol 44, 731–737 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-011-0062-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-011-0062-3

Keywords

Navigation