74
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Is extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) still suitable for >1.5 cm intrarenal stones? Data analysis of 1902 SWLs

, , , & ORCID Icon
Pages 388-393 | Received 10 Mar 2021, Accepted 28 Jun 2021, Published online: 19 Jul 2021

References

  • Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I. J Urol. 2016;196(4):1153–1160.
  • Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):475–482.
  • El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O, et al. A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution non-contrast computed tomography. Eur Urol. 2007;51(6):1688–1693.
  • Weaver J, Monga M. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for upper tract urolithiasis. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(2):168–172.
  • Sorensen C, Chandhoke P, Moore M, et al. Comparison of intravenous sedation versus general anesthesia on the efficacy of the Doli 50 lithotriptor. J Urol. 2002;168(1):35–37.
  • Van Besien J, Uvin P, Hermie I, et al. Ultrasonography is not inferior to fluoroscopy to guide extracorporeal shock waves during treatment of renal and upper ureteric calculi: a randomized prospective study. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7802672.
  • Skuginna V, Nguyen DP, Seiler R, et al. Does stepwise voltage ramping protect the kidney from injury during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2016;69(2):267–273.
  • Okada A, Yasui T, Taguchi K, et al. Impact of official technical training for urologists on the efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy. Urolithiasis. 2013;41(6):487–492.
  • Khalil MM. Which is more important in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of solitary renal stones: stone location or stone burden? J Endourol. 2012;26(5):535–539.
  • Torricelli FC, Marchini GS, Yamauchi FI, et al. Impact of renal anatomy on shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole kidney stones: results of a prospective multifactorial analysis controlled by computerized tomography. J Urol. 2015;193(6):2002–2007.
  • El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10-20 mm. BJU Int. 2012;110(6):898–902.
  • Ghani KR, Sammon JD, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Trends in surgery for upper urinary tract calculi in the USA using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample: 1999–2009. BJU Int. 2013;112(2):224–230.
  • Kim TB, Lee SC, Kim KH, et al. The feasibility of shockwave lithotripsy for treating solitary, lower calyceal stones over 1 cm in size. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013;7(3–4):E156–E160.
  • Hadj-Moussa M, Brown JA. Effect of high shock number on acute complication development after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2013;27(8):1015–1019.
  • Lee C, Best SL, Ugarte R, et al. Impact of learning curve on efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy. Radiol Technol. 2008;80(1):20–24.
  • Azal Neto W, Reis LO, Pedro RN. Prediction of stone-free rates following extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in a contemporary cohort of patients with stone densities exceeding 1000 HU. Scand J Urol. 2020;54(4):344–348.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 <2cm: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2016;44(4):353–365.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.