Prediction of stone-free rates following extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in a contemporary cohort of patients with stone densities exceeding 1000 HU

References

• [cited 2020 May 05]. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/kidney-stones-surgical-management-guideline.
   Google Scholar
• [cited 2020 May 05]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/.
   Google Scholar
• Sutherland JW. Recurrence following operative treatment of upper urinary tract stone. J Urol. 1982;127(3):472–474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strohmaier WL. Volkswirtschaftliche Aspekte des Harnsteinleidens und der Harnsteinmetaphylaxe [Socioeconomic aspects of urinary calculi and metaphylaxis of urinary calculi]. Urologe A. 2000;39(2):166–170.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nowfar S, Palazzi-Churas K, Chang DC, et al. The relationship of obesity and gender prevalence changes in United States inpatient nephrolithiasis. Urology. 2011;78(5):1029–1033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trinchieri A. Epidemiology of urolithiasis: an update. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2008;5(2):101–106. Stone size was the only significant success predictor in our cohort, with 76% SF rate for stones <1 cm in 4 weeks follow-up, supporting that renal stones >1000 HU may be suitable to SWL.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK. Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol. 2017;31(6):547–556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heers H, Turney BW. Trends in urological stone disease: a 5-year update of hospital episode statistics. BJU Int. 2016;118(5):785–789.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchini GS, Mello MF, Levy R, et al. Contemporary trends of inpatient surgical management of stone disease: national analysis in an economic growth scenario. J Endourol. 2015;29(8):956–962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller NL, Lingeman JE. Management of kidney stones. BMJ. 2007;334(7591):468–472.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):CD007044.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawler AC, Ghiraldi EM, Tong C, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy: current perspectives and future directions. Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18(4):25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran TY, McGillen K, Cone EB, et al. Triple D Score is a reportable predictor of shockwave lithotripsy stone-free rates. J Endourol. 2015;29(2):226–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng CF, Siu DY, Wong A, et al. 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. 2009;181(3):1151–1157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdelhamid M, Mosharafa AA, Ibrahim H, et al. A prospective evaluation of high-resolution ct parameters in predicting extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy success for upper urinary tract calculi. J Endourol. 2016;30(11):1227–1232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Panagopoulos G, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield units. Urology. 2005;65(1):33–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta NP, Ansari MS, Kesarvani P, et al. Role of computed tomography with no contrast medium enhancement in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. BJU Int. 2005;95(9):1285–1288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakasato T, Morita J, Ogawa Y. Evaluation of Hounsfield Units as a predictive factor for the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and stone composition. Urolithiasis. 2015;43(1):69–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng G, Xie LP., Li XY Value of Hounsfield Unit on CT in Prediction of Stone-Free Rate of Upper Urinary Calculi After Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2006;86(4):276–278.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hameed DA, Elgammal MA, ElGanainy EO, et al. Comparing non contrast computerized tomography criteria versus dual X-ray absorptiometry as predictors of radio-opaque upper urinary tract stone fragmentation after electromagnetic shockwave lithotripsy. Urolithiasis. 2013;41(6):511–515.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, DA Honey RJ, 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. 2010;38(4):307–313.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ouzaid I, Al-Qahtani S, Dominique S, et al. A 970 Hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients’ selection for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from a prospective study. BJU Int. 2012;110(11b):E438–E442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• el-Assmy A, Abou-el-Ghar ME, el-Nahas AR, et al. Multidetector computed tomography: role in determination of urinary stones composition and disintegration with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy-an in vitro study. Urology. 2011;77(2):286–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph P, Mandal AK, Singh SK, et al. 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. 2002;167(5):1968–1971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torricelli FCM, Monga M, Yamauchi FI, et al. Renal stone features are more important than renal anatomy to predict shock wave lithotripsy outcomes: results from a prospective study with CT follow-up. J Endourol. 2020;34(1):63–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elkoushy MA, Hassan JA, Morehouse DD, et al. Factors determining stone-free rate in shock wave lithotripsy using standard focus of Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter. Urology. 2011;78(4):759–763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niwa N, Matsumoto K, Miyahara M, et al. Simple and practical nomograms for predicting the stone-free rate after shock wave lithotripsy in patients with a solitary upper ureteral stone. World J Urol. 2017;35(9):1455–1461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchholz NP, Rhabar MH, Talati J. Is measurement of stone surface area necessary for SWL treatment of nonstaghorn calculi? J Endourol. 2002;16(4):215–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park YI, Yu JH, Sung LH, et al. Evaluation of possible predictive variables for the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones. Korean J Urol. 2010;51(10):713–718.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, Ray AA, et al. A clinical nomogram to predict the successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol. 2011;186(2):556–562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller OF, Kane CJ. Time to stone passage for observed ureteral calculi: a guide for patient education. J Urol. 1999;162(3 Pt 1):688–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mi Y, Ren K, Pan H, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) with holmium laser versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stone <2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2016;44(4):353–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar