Management of ureteral stones remains controversial. To determine whether optimizing the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy delivery rate would improve the treatment of solitary ureteral stones we compared the outcomes of 2 delivery rates in a prospective randomized trial.

Materials and Methods:

From July 2010 to October 2012, 254 consecutive patients were randomized to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at a shock wave delivery rate of 60 and 90 pulses per minute in 130 and 124, respectively. The primary study end point was the stone-free rate at 3-month followup. Secondary end points were stone disintegration, treatment time, complications and the rate of secondary treatments. Descriptive statistics were used to compare end points between the 2 groups. The adjusted OR and 95% CI were calculated to assess predictors of success.

Results:

The stone-free rate at 3 months was significantly higher in patients who underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at a shock wave delivery rate of 90 pulses per minute than in those who received 60 pulses per minute (91% vs 80%, p = 0.01). Patients with proximal (100% vs 83%, p = 0.005) and mid ureteral stones (96% vs 73%, p = 0.03) accounted for the observed difference but not those with distal ureteral stones (81% vs 80%, p = 0.9, respectively). Treatment time, complications and the rate of secondary treatments were comparable between the 2 groups. On multivariable analysis the shock wave delivery rate of 90 pulses per minute, proximal stone location, stone density, stone size and an absent indwelling Double-J® stent were independent predictors of success.

Conclusions:

Optimizing the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy delivery rate can achieve excellent results for ureteral stones.

References

1 : First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J Urol1982; 127: 417. Link, Google Scholar
2 : A prospective randomised trial comparing the modified HM3 with the MODULITH® SLX-F2 lithotripter. Eur Urol2011; 59: 637. Google Scholar
3 : A prospective randomized trial comparing 2 lithotriptors for stone disintegration and induced renal trauma. J Urol2003; 169: 54. Link, Google Scholar
4 : Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations. J Urol2005; 173: 2013. Link, Google Scholar
5 : 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol2007; 178: 2418. Link, Google Scholar
6 : Shock wave lithotripsy-new concepts and optimizing treatment parameters. Urol Clin North Am2013; 40: 59. Google Scholar
7 : Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol2005; 174: 595. Link, Google Scholar
8 : A prospective, randomized study of the clinical effects of shock wave delivery for unilateral kidney stones: 60 versus 120 shocks per minute. J Urol2012; 188: 837. Link, Google Scholar
9 : Treatment protocols to reduce renal injury during shock wave lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol2009; 19: 192. Google Scholar
10 : Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol2005; 173: 127. Link, Google Scholar
11 : Does rate matter? The results of a randomized controlled trial of 60 versus 120 shocks per minute for shock wave lithotripsy of renal calculi. J Urol2006; 176: 2055. Link, Google Scholar
12 : Optimal frequency of shock wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Urol2013; 190: 1260. Link, Google Scholar
13 : A randomized, double-blind trial to compare shock wave frequencies of 60 and 120 shocks per minute for upper ureteral stones. J Urol2009; 182: 1418. Link, Google Scholar
14 : Piezoelectric lithotripsy of ureteral stones: influence of shockwave frequency on sedation and therapeutic efficiency. J Endourol1999; 13: 157. Google Scholar
15 : Low success rate of repeat shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones after failed initial treatment. J Urol2000; 164: 1905. Link, Google Scholar
16 : Influence of shock wave pressure amplitude and pulse repetition frequency on the lifespan, size and number of transient cavities in the field of an electromagnetic lithotripter. Phys Med Biol1998; 43: 3113. Google Scholar
17 : The mechanisms of stone disintegration by shock waves. Ultrasound Med Biol1991; 17: 239. Google Scholar
18 : Why stones break better at slow shockwave rates than at fast rates: in vitro study with a research electrohydraulic lithotripter. J Endourol2006; 20: 537. Google Scholar
19 Cleveland RO and McAteer JA: The physics of shockwave lithotripsy. In: Smith’s Textbook on Endourology. Edited by AD Smith, GH Badlani, DH Baggley et al. Hamilton, Canada: BC Decker 2007; p 317. Google Scholar
20 : Fracture mechanics model of stone comminution in ESWL and implications for tissue damage. Phys Med Biol2000; 45: 1923. Google Scholar
21 : Independent predictors of failure of shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones employing a second-generation lithotripter. J Endourol2003; 17: 201. Google Scholar
22 : Extracorporeal shock waves lithotripsy of ureteral stones: clinical experience and experimental findings. J Urol1986; 135: 831. Link, Google Scholar
23 : Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi: what a powerful machine can achieve. J Urol2003; 169: 878. Link, Google Scholar
24 : Optimal therapy for the distal ureteral stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy. J Urol1994; 152: 62. Link, Google Scholar
25 : The effects of acute and chronic JJ stent placement on upper urinary tract motility and calculus transit. Br J Urol1994; 74: 434. Google Scholar
26 : Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield units. Urology2005; 65: 33. Google Scholar
27 : Predicting effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy by stone attenuation value. J Endourol2010; 24: 1169. Google Scholar
28 : Effect of skin-to-stone distance on shockwave lithotripsy success. J Endourol2008; 22: 1623. Google Scholar