Abstract
Purpose
To compare the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for upper lumbar ureteric stones using the alternating bidirectional approach versus the standard approach during the first session.
Methods
Our study was a randomized controlled trial including patients with single radio-opaque stone < 1 cm located in the upper lumbar ureter (from the ureteropelvic junction till the level medial to the lower margin of the kidney). SWL was conducted using electromagnetic Dornier Gemini Lithotripter. In group 1, patients were treated with the alternating under and over-table approach during the first session only and if other sessions were needed, the standard under-table approach was used. In group 2, patients were treated with the standard under-table approach during all sessions. Stone disintegration after the first session was assessed by kidney–ureter–bladder X-ray, renal ultrasonography and noncontrast computed tomography. Moreover, the incidence and severity of postoperative complications were evaluated.
Results
Forty-eight patients in each group completed the study. Patient demographics and stone characteristics were comparable in both groups. Complete disintegration was achieved in 41.7% of patients in group 1 versus 18.8% in group 2 (P = 0.021). Stone-free rate (SFR) was 58.3% and 20.8% in group 1 and 2 respectively (P = 0.001). The mean session time was 56.42 min in group 1 versus 46.35 min in group 2 (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications.
Conclusion
Stone disintegration and SFR after the first SWL session are higher when using the alternating bidirectional approach for upper lumbar ureteric stones at the expense of longer procedural duration.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials identifier (ID: NCT03243682), clinicaltrials.gov
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chaussy C, Schmiedt E, Jocham D et al (1982) First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J Urol 127:417–420
Abdel-Khalek M, Sheir KZ, Mokhtar AA et al (2004) Prediction of success rate after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of renal stones: a multivariate analysis model. Scand J Urol Nephrol 38:161–167
Lechevallier E, Traxer O, Saussine C (2008) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stone. Prog Urol 18:878–885
Al Ansari A, As-Sadiq K, Al-Said S et al (2006) Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol 38:63–67
Moon KB, Lim GS, Hwang JS et al (2012) Optimal shock wave rate for shock wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a prospective randomized study Korean. J Urol 11:790–794
Sheir KZ, El-Sheikh AM, Ghoneim MA (2001) Synchronous twin-pulse technique to improve efficacy of SWL: preliminary results of an experimental study. J Endourol 15:965–974
Greenstein A, Sofer M, Matzkin H (2004) Efficacy of the Duet lithotripter using two energy sources for stone fragmentation by shockwaves: an in vitro study. J Endourol 18:942–945
Sheir KZ, El-Diasty TA, Ismail AM (2005) Evaluation of a synchronous twin-pulse technique for shock wave lithotripsy: the first prospective clinical study. BJU Int 95:389–393
Fernbach SK, Maizels M, Conway JJ (1993) Ultrasound grading of hydronephrosis: introduction to the system used by the Society for Fetal Urology. Pediatr Radiol 23:478–480
Li XD, Wu YP, Wei Y et al (2018) Predictors of recoverability of renal function after pyeloplasty in adults with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urol Int 100:209–215
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline. PART I J Urol 196:1153–1160
Zomorrodi A, Elahian A, Ghorbani N, Tavoosi A (2006) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in prone and supine positions for patients with upper ureteral calculi. Urol J 3:130–133
Goktas S, Peskircioglu L, Tahmaz L et al (2000) Is there significance of the choice of prone versus supine position in the treatment of proximal ureter stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? Eur Urol 38:618–620
Sheir KZ, Elhalwagy SM, Abo-Elghar ME et al (2008) Evaluation of a synchronous twin-pulse technique for shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized study of effectiveness and safety in comparison to standard single-pulse technique. BJU Int 101:1420–1426
Funding
The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
HM: patients’ follow-up, data collection and manuscript writing. EAA: manuscript revision and editing. AEDB: manuscript revision and editing. SKZ: SWL session supervision, statistical analysis and study chief.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights
All procedures in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hegazy, M., El-Assmy, A., Ali-El-Dein, B. et al. The alternating bidirectional versus the standard approach during shock wave lithotripsy for upper lumbar ureteric stones: a randomized controlled trial. World J Urol 39, 247–253 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03148-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03148-5