Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the 21^th century – controversy and clinical practice.

Czech version

Authors: Vít Paldus ¹; Vladimír Šámal ^1,2; Jan Mečl ¹; Jan Fogl ¹; Gabriela Čečerle ¹; Jiří Pírek ¹
Authors‘ workplace: Urologické oddělení Krajské nemocnice Liberec, a. s. ¹; Urologická klinika Fakultní nemocnice a Lékařské fakulty UK, Hradec Králové ²
Published in: Ces Urol 2017; 21(2): 161-171
Category: Original Articles

Overview

Objective:
Evaluation of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy efficacy and safety in a prospectively followed group of patients treated by this procedure. Determination of the factors that may affect efficacy of the procedure and analysis of the possible risk factors for the development of renal parenchymal damage due to the use of shock wave.

Methods:
We assessed 301 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy procedures performed in 250 patients from December 2012 to October 2015. All procedures were performed under analgosedation with the use of the electromagnetic source EMSE 140f machine Dornier Compact Sigma on the basis of the standardized protocol which was determined before the study. This protocol took into account the size and the localization of the stones. Efficacy quotient (EQ) and stone free rate (SFR) were used in order to evaluate the procedure effectiveness. The relationship between the procedure efficacy and body mass index (BMI), the lithiasis size and the location and the overall energy dose applied (E_dose) was analysed. For the purpose of the procedure safety evaluation ultrasound examination aiming at the presence of subcapsular or perirenal haematoma were performed after each procedure. Positive findings were subsequently verified by spiral CT examination. We tried to analyse the possible risk factors for the development of renal parenchymal injury after the use of shock waves.

Results:
Ultrasound, native nephrogram or CT was performed three months after the procedure to assess the treatment results. SFR and EQ were achieved in 78.6 % and 56.6 % of our patients respectively. Development of the renal hematoma was detected in 11 patients (4.5 %), from this group three patients had symptomatic hematoma (1.23 %). The patients with ureterolithiasis were excluded from the procedure safety evaluation as the shock wave trajectory in these patients makes the risk of renal injury quite improbable. BMI and E_dose proved to have influence on the efficacy and safety of the procedure in our study. The same applies for previous renal infection and urinary tract stenting.

Conclusion:
We demonstrated good efficacy of ESWL (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy) and at the same time we confirmed the assumption that the incidence of kidney damage is higher than it was supposed in the past. The overall energy dose applied is essential for the efficacy and safety of the procedure. Due to the absence of any general guidelines we consider important that every department monitors their own results and to optimize the energy dose for every particular lithotriptor. We further recommend introduction of an efficacy safety quotient (ESQ) and close monitoring of the factors influencing the efficacy and safety of the procedure. Therapeutic approach towards the peripheral lithiasis and lower pole calyx peripheral lithiasis in particular remains challenging and problematic.

KEY WORDS:
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, stone free rate, efficacy quotient, energy dose, efficacy safety quotient.

Sources

1. Petřík A, Horáková J, Tolinger J. Trendy v terapii urolitiázy v létech 1990–2015. 62. Výroční konference české urologické společnosti ČLS JEP. Poster.

2. Deters LA, Jumper CM, Steinberg PL, et al. Evaluating the definition of „stone‑free status“ in contemporary urologic literature. Clin Nephrol 2011; 76(5): 354–357.

3. Denstedt JD, Clayman RV, Preminger GM. Efficacy quotient as a means of comparing lithotripters. J Endourol 1990; (3): 100.

4. Clayman RV, MCLennan BL, Garvin TJ, Denstedt JD, Andriole GL. Lithostar: an electromagnetic acoustic shock wave unit for extracorporeal lithotripsy. J Endourol 1989; 3: 307–313.

5. Rassweiler J, Köhrmann J, Jünemann KP, Alken P. Use of electromagnetic technology. In Smith AD. Controversies in endourology, Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co 1995: 95–106.

6. Kerbl K, Rehman J, Landman J, et al. Current management of urolithiasis: progress or regress? J Endourol 2002; 16: 281–288.

7. Granz B, Köhler G. What makes a shock wave efficient in lithotripsy stones disease 1992; 4: 123–128.

8. Rassweiler JJ, Bergsdorf T, Ginter S, et al. Progress in lithotripter technology. In: Chassy C, Haupt G, Jocham D, Köhrmann KU, Wilbert D (eds.) Therapeutic energy applications in urology. Standards and recent developments. Thieme Stuttgart – New York 2005: 3–15.

9. Rassweiler JJ, Tailly GG, Chaussy C. Progress in lithotriptor technology. EAU Update Series 2005: 17–36.

10. Chaussy C, Haupt G, Jocham D, Köhrmann KU. Consensus: shock wave technology and application – state of the art in 2010. Therapeutic Energy Applications in Urology II 2010; 2: 37–52.

11. Sheir KZ, Madbouly K, Elsobky E. Prospective randomized comparative study of the effectiveness and safety of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters. J Urol 2003; 170: 389–392.

12. Koser M, Rhein A, Haecker M, Rabs U. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) of urinary calculi – effect of shock wave frequency on fragmentation success: preliminary result of prospective study. Eur Urol 2001; 39(Suppl): 58.

13. Sorensen C, Chandhoke P, Moore M, Wolf C, Sarram A. Comparison of intravenous sedation versus general anesthesia on the efficacy of the Doli 50 lithotriptor. J urol 2002; 168: 35–37.

14. Rassweiler J, Knoll T, Köhrmann K, et al. Shock wave technology and application: an update. Eur Urol May 2011; 59(5): 784–796.

15. Paldus V, Šámal V, Mečl J, Pírek J. Zhodnocení účinnosti extrakorporální litotrypse elektromagnetického generátoru EMSE 140f Dornier Compact Sigma a stanovení efektivní energetické dávky. Ces Urol 2014; 18(4): 316–323.

16. Guanqyan L, James WC Jr, Pischalnikov YA, Ziyue L, McAteer JA. Size and Location of Defects at the Coupling Interface Affect Lithotripter Performance. BJU Int. Dec 2012; 110: E871–E877.

17. Bohris C, Roosen A, Dickmann M, et al. Monitoring the coupling of the lithotripter therapy head with skin during routine shock wave lithotripsy with a surveillance camera. J Urol. 2012 Jan; 187: 157–163.

18. Tailly GG. Optical coupling control in ESWL: first clinical experience. Poster.

19. Pishchalnikov YA, Neucks JS, VonDerHaar RJ, Pishchalnikova IV, Williams Jr JC, MCAteer JA. Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shock wave energy. J Urol 2006; 176: 2706–2710.

20. Petřík A, Záťura F, Beneš J. Vliv stentingu na dezintegraci ureterolitiázy in vitro. Ces Urol 2004; 8(3): 46–48.

21. Petřík A, Alterová E, Fiala M, Novák J, Záťura F. Vliv stentingu na dezintegraci ureterolitázy in vivo. Ces Urol 2006; 10(1): 59–63.

22. Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(3): 475–482.

23. Logarakis NF, Jewett MA, Luymes J, et al. Variation in clinical outcome following shock wave lithotripsy. J urol 2000; 163(3): 721–725

24. Li WM, Wu WJ, Chou YH, et al. Clinical predictors of stone fragmentation using slow‑rate shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Int 2007; 79: 124.

25. Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar M, Tuglu D, Mert C, Basar H. Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study. Urology 2005; 66: 1160.

26. Pace KT, Ghiculete D, Harju M, Honey JDA. Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double‑blind trial. J Urol 2005; 174: 595.

27. Madbouly K, El-Tiraifi AM, Seida M, El_Faqih SR, Atassi R, Talic RF. Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 2005; 173: 127.

28. Semins MJ, Trock BJ, Matlaga BR. The effect of shock wave rate on the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy: a meta‑analysis. J Urol 2008; 179: 194.

29. Li K, Lin T, Zhang C, et al. Optimal frequency of shock wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a systematic review and meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Urol 2013; 190: 1260.

30. Hnilicka S, Nguyen DP, Schmutz R, et al. Optimising parameters of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for ureteral stones results in excellent treatment outcomes. Results of prospective, randomised trial. Annual EAU Congres 2015, Madrid. Abstr. 92.

31. Choi JW, Song PH, Kim HT. Kim predictive factors of the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Korean J Urol 2012; 53(6): 424–430.

32. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Panagopoulos G, Bruno JJ, Fracchia JA. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield units. Urology 2005; 65: 33–36.

33. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, et al. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 1994; 151: 663–667.

34. Nussberger F, Roth B, Metzger T, Kiss B, Thalmann GN, Seiler R. A low or high BMI is a risk factor for renal hematoma after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for kidney stones. Urolithiasis 2016; 30: 30.

35. Cambell‑Walsh Urology. Philadelphia: Elsevier Souders, Tenth edition 2012; 1356–1408.

36. Dhar NB, Bailey MR, Paun M, et al. A multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with subcapsular hematoma formation following electromagnetic shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2004; 172: 2271.

37. Handa RK, Bailey MR, Paun M, et al. Pretreatment with low‑energy shock wave induces renal vasoconstriction during standard shock wave lithotripsy (SWL): a treatment protocol known to reduce SWL‑induced renal injury. BJU Int 2009; 103(9): 1270–1274.

38. Manikandan R, Gall Z, Gunendran T, et al. Do anatomic factors pose a significant risk in the formation of lower pole stones? Urology 2007; 69(4): 620–624.

39. Keeley FX Jr, Tilling K, Elves A, et al. Preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial of prophylactic shock wave lithotripsy for small asymptomatic renal calyceal stones. BJU Int 2001; 87: 1.

40. Osman MM, Alfano Y, Kamp S, et al. 5-year‑follow‑up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 2005; 47: 860.

41. Rebuck DA, Macejko A, Bhalani V, Ramos P, Nadler RB. The natural history of renal stone fragments following ureteroscopy. Urology 2011. 77: 564.

42. Chaussy C, Schuller J, Schmiedt E, Brandl H, Jocham D, Liedl B. Extracorporeal shock‑wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of urolithiasis. Urology 1984; 23: 59.

43. Roth RA, Beckmann CF. Complications of extracorporeal shock‑wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Clin North Am 1900; 15: 155.

44. Knapp PM, Kulb TB, Lingeman JE, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy‑induced peri‑renal hematomas. J Urol 1988; 139: 700.

45. Newman LH, Saltzman B. Identifying risk factors in development of clinically significant post‑shock‑wave lithotripsy subcapsular hematomas. Urology 1991; 38: 35.

46. Tillotson CL, Deluca SA. Complications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Am Fam Physician 1988; 38: 161.

47. Tailly GG. Management of acute post ESWL complications. Ces Urol 2000, 4(2): 5–8.

48. Kaude JV, Williams CM, Millner MR, Scott KN, Finlayson B. Renal morphology and function immediately after extracorporeal shock‑wave lithotripsy. Am J Roentgenol 1985; 145: 305.

49. Rubin JI, Arger PH, Pollack HM, et al. Kidney changes after extracorporeal shock wavelithotripsy: CT evaluation. Radiology 1987; 162: 21.

50. Baumgartner BR, Dickey KW, Ambrose SS, Walton KN, Nelson RC, Bernardino ME. Kidney changes after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: appearance on MR imaging. Radiology 1987; 163: 531.

51. Matin SF, Yost A, Streem SB. Extracorporeal shockwavelithotripsy: a comparative study of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic units. J Urol 2001; 166: 2053.

52. Coptcoat MJ, Webb DR, Kellett MJ, et al. The complications of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: management and prevention. Br J Urol 1986; 58: 578

53. Lee HY, Yang YH, Shen JT, et al. Risk factors survey for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy‑induced renal hematoma. J Endourol 2013; 27(6): 763–767.

54. Schnabel MJ, Gierth M, Chaussy CG, Dotzer K, Burger M, Fritsche HM. Incidence and risk factors of renal hematoma: a prospective study of 1,300 SWL treatments. Urolithiasis. 2014.

55. Skuginna V, Nguyen DP, Seiler R, et al. Does a step‑wise voltage ramping protect the kidney from injury during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL)? Results of the prospective randomized trial. Annual EAU Congres 2015, Madrid. Abstr. 90.