Abstract
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has become the least invasive treatment modality with high success rates for urinary calculi; however, its established efficacy has been associated with a number of side effects and complications. This study sought to further evaluate the incidence rate and management of the post-SWL complications and also the efficiency of procedure in a large scale of patients. During a 51-month period, 3,241 consecutive adult patients with the mean age of 38.1 years (range 15–75) and urinary calculi (≥4 mm) underwent SWL at our referral center and were followed for 3 months prospectively. Overall, 3,614 stones [kidneys (83.5%), ureters (15.8%) and bladder (0.7%)] in 3,241 patients were treated requiring 7,245 SWL sessions. Stone-free state occurred in 71.5% calculi and success rate in 79.8% patients. The re-treatment was necessary in 37.2% patients. Auxiliary procedure and efficiency quotient were 5.6% and 0.50, respectively. SWL success rate decreased as the stone size increased (P < 0.0001). The stone-free rate was correlated with the location of the stone. During the study period, 4,075 complications occurred in our patients. Colicky pain (40%) was the most frequent symptom followed by gross hematuria (32%) and steinstrasse (24.2%). Symptomatic bacteriuria developed in 9.7% patients; Escherichia coli (30.4%) was the most causative organism. In conclusion, the complication rate following SWL was high in our study; however, the majority was mild and managed conservatively or with the minimal intervention. Moreover, the management of urinary calculi in adults using SWL was proved to be safe and efficient, particularly for ureteral stones <10 mm, renal pelvic stones <20 mm, and bladder stones <30 mm.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chaussy C, Schuller J, Schmiedt E, Brandl H, Jocham D, Liedl B (1984) Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of urolithiasis. Urology 23:59–66
Ehreth JT, Drach GW, Arnett ML et al (1994) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: multicenter study of kidney and upper ureters versus middle and lower ureters treatments. J Urol 152:1379–1385
Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG et al (1997) Ureteral stones clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 158:1915–1921
Madaan S, Joyce AD (2007) Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol 17:109–113
Madbouly K, Sheir KZ, Elsobky E, Eraky I, Kenawy M (2002) Risk factors for the formation of steinstrasse after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a statistical model. J Urol 167:12349–12442
Abdel-Khalek M, Sheir KZ, Mokhtar AA, Eraky I, Kenawy M, Bazeed M (2004) Prediction of success rate after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of renal stones: a multivariate analysis model. Scand J Urol Nephrol 38:161–167
Skolarikos A, Alivizatos G, de la Rosette J (2006) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 25 years later: complications and their prevention. Eur Urol 50:981–990
Kostakopoulos A, Stavropoulos NI, Louras G, Deliveliotis CH, Dimopoulos C (1997) Experience in 3500 patients with urinary stones treated with the Domier HM-4 bath-free lithotriptor. Int Urol Nephrol 29:147–153
Coz F, Orvieto M, Bustos M et al (2000) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of 2000 urinary calculi with the Modulith SL-20: success and failure according to size and location of stones. J Endourol 14:239–246
el-Damanhoury H, Scharfe T, Ruth J, Roos S, Hohenfellner R (1991) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of urinary calculi: experience in treatment of 3, 278 patients using the Siemens Lithostar and Lithostar Plus. J Urol 145:484–488
Ather MA, Paryani J, Memon A, Sulaiman MN (2001) A 10-year experience of managing ureteric calculi: changing trends towards endourological intervention: is there a role for open surgery? BJU Int 88:173–177
Fujimoto N, Kyo M, Ichikawa Y, Nagano S (1994) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones using the Dornier lithotripter MFL 5000. Urol Int 52:98–101
Anagnostou T, Tolley D (2004) Management of ureteric stones. Eur Urol 45:714–721
Willis LR, Evan AP, Connors BA, Shao Y, Blomgren PM, Pratt JH et al (2005) Shockwave lithotripsy: dose-related effects on renal structure, hemodynamics, and tubular function. J Endourol 19:90–101
Dhar NB, Thornton J, Karafa MT, Streem SB (2004) A multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with subcapsular hematoma formation following electromagnetic shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 172:2271–2274
Silberstein J, Lakin CM, Kellogg Parsons J (2008) Shock wave lithotripsy and renal hemorrhage. Rev Urol 10:236–241
Lingeman JE, Woods JR, Toth PD (1990) Blood pressure changes following extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and other forms of treatment for nephrolithiasis. JAMA 263:1789–1794
Jewett MA, Bombardier C, Logan AG, Psihramis KE, Wesley-James T, Mahoney JE et al (1998) A randomized controlled trial to assess the incidence of new onset hypertension in patients after shock wave lithotripsy for asymptomatic renal calculi. J Urol 160:1241–1243
Strohmaier WL, Schmidt J, Lahme S, Bichler KH (2000) Arterial blood pressure following different types of urinary stone therapy. Eur Urol 38:753–757
Krambeck AE, Gettman MT, Rohlinger AL et al (2006) Diabetes mellitus and hypertension associated with shock wave lithotripsy of renal and proximal ureteral stones at 19 years of follow-up. J Urol 175:1742–1747
Zanetti G, Ostini F, Montanari E et al (1999) Cardiac dysrhythmias induced by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol 13:409–412
Evan AP, Willlis LR, Lingeman JE, McAteer JA (1998) Renal trauma and the risk of long-term complications in shock wave lithotripsy. Nephron 78:1–8
Deliveliotis CH, Kostakopoulos A, Stavropoulos NI, Karagiotis E, Kyriazis P, Dimopoulos C (1995) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 5 patients with aortic aneurysm. J Urol 154:1671–1672
Maker V, Layke J (2004) Gastrointestinal injury secondary to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a review of the literature since its inception. J Am Coll Surg 198:128–135
Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJ, Lemmens WA, Debruyne FM (1991) Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for large renal calculi: the role of ureteral stents. A randomized trial. J Urol 145:699–702
Wirth MP, Theiss M, Frohmuller HG (1992) Primary extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of staghorn renal calculi. Urol Int 48:71–75
Raz R, Zoabi A, Sudarsky M, Shental J (1994) The incidence of urinary tract infection in patients without bacteriuria who underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 151:329–330
Muller-Mattheis VG, Schmale D, Seewald M et al (1991) Bacteriemia during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of renal calculi. J Urol 146:733–736
Halachmi S, Nagar M, Golan S, Ginesin Y, Meretyk S (2006) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for large ureteral stones using HM3 lithotriptor. J Urol 176:1449–1452
Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJ, Ezz el Din KE et al (1997) The value of antibiotic prophylaxis during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the prevention of urinary tract infections in patients with urine proven sterile prior to treatment. Eur Urol 31:30–35
Pearle MS, Roehrbom CG (1997) Antimicrobial prophylaxis prior to shock wave lithotripsy in patients with sterile urine before treatment: a meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Urology 49:679–686
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the nursing, secretary and administrative staff of the Urology Research Center, Sina Hospital, especially Dr. M. Rezaeidanesh, Mrs. G. Abdi, Mrs. F. Heydari and Mrs. M. Zahedikia for their excellent cooperation in the study, and also Dr. P. Khashayar and Ms. M. Tayebi for their assistance in preparation of the manuscript. Furthermore, we are grateful to Dr. B. Saboury for his consultation in the statistical analysis.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Salem, S., Mehrsai, A., Zartab, H. et al. Complications and outcomes following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective study of 3,241 patients. Urol Res 38, 135–142 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-009-0247-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-009-0247-8