Shock wave lithotripsy in the era of COVID-19.

Objective: The objective of the study y was to evaluate factors which can improve shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) results to keep up with COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Between June 2020 and June 2021, patients with radio-opaque or faint radio-opaque upper urinary tract stones, stone attenuation value ≤1200 HU, and stones size <2.5 cm were treated by electrohydraulic SWL. Patients with respiratory tract symptoms elevated temperature, contact with COVID-19 patients, or positive COVID-19 swab 2 weeks preoperatively, skin-to-stone distance >11 cm, and body mass index >30 kg/m2 were excluded from the study. Patients were prospectively enrolled in SWL done at a rate of 40-50 SWs/min under combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy-guided, ramped into high power in the 1st 300 shocks. Success rate and complications were recorded. Results: Five hundred and ninety patients completed the study. The success rate after 1st session was 408/590 patients (69.15%) which was augmented by 2nd session to reach 527/590 patients 89.3%. The success rate was 96.2% at 3 months postoperatively. Most complications were mild (Grade 1 or 2). Conclusions: SWL results improved using slow rate high power from the start of the session under combined fluoroscopy and ultrasound guidance. SWL may be a preferred option during a pandemic.

Value of early second session shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of upper ureteric stones compared to laser ureteroscopy.

PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of early second session shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) compared with laser ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of upper ureteric stones were evaluated. METHODS: From January to October 2019, 108 patients with upper ureteric stones (< 1.5 cm and ≤ 1000 Hounsfield unit (HU)) were randomized into SWL and laser URS groups. The second SWL session was performed within 48-72 h of the first session. Using plain abdominal X-ray and ultrasonography, patients were evaluated 48-72 h after the first SWL session and one week after the second and third SWL sessions or one week after URS. The procedure was considered a success when no additional procedures were needed to clear the stone. To determine the stone-free rate (SFR), noncontrast computed tomography of the urinary tract was performed three months postoperatively. RESULTS: In the SWL group, the success rates were 92.6% and 94.4% after the second and third sessions. The SFR was 96.2% in the laser URS group. The success rates were not significantly different between the second and third SWL sessions versus the laser URS (p = 0.418 and 0.660, respectively). Operative and fluoroscopy times were significantly longer in the SWL group (p = 0.001), and JJ stent insertions were needed after laser URS. CONCLUSION: Ultraslow full-power SWL treatment of patients with upper ureteric stones (< 1.5 cm and ≤ 1000 HU) with an early second session is safe and effective compared to laser URS. Patients who do not respond to early second SWL session should be shifted to another treatment modality.

Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy protocol in the management of high attenuation value upper ureteric stones: A randomized comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy protocol in the management of high attenuation value upper ureteric stones compared with slow-rate, power-ramping shock wave lithotripsy. METHODS: This was a randomized trial enrolling patients with a single high attenuation value (≥1000 HU) upper ureteric stones between January 2019 and July 2019. Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy (54 patients) was applied at a rate of 30 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18-22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. Then, full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. Slow-rate, power-ramping shock wave lithotripsy (47 patients) was applied at a rate of 60 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 10 kV during the first 500 shock waves, then from 11 to 22 kV during the next 1000 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1500 shock waves. Up to three sessions were carried out with a follow up 3 months after the last session. The primary outcome was the stone-free rate. Perioperative data of the two protocols were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in preoperative data. The stone-free rate was significantly higher in ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy after single (92.6% vs 23.4%) and multiple (96.3% vs 63.8%) sessions. Most complications were mild, with no significant difference between both groups (9.3% vs 12.8%; P = 0.573). Logistic regression analysis identified ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy protocol as the only significant independent factor for the stone-free rate (odds ratio 12.589, P = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value upper ureteric stones is associated with a significantly higher stone-free rate, and with mild complications that are comparable to those of standard shock wave lithotripsy.

Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy versus slow power-ramping shock wave lithotripsy in stones with high attenuation value: A randomized comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full-power versus slow rate, power-ramping shock wave lithotripsy in the management of stones with a high attenuation value. METHODS: This was a randomized comparative study enrolling patients with single high attenuation value (≥1000 Hounsfield unit) stones (≤3 cm) between September 2015 and May 2018. Patients with skin-to-stone distance >11 cm or body mass index >30 kg/m2 were excluded. Electrohydraulic shock wave lithotripsy was carried out at rate of 30 shock waves/min for group A versus 60 shock waves/min for group B. In group A, power ramping was from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18-22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. This full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. In group B, power ramping was carried out with an increase of 4 kV each 500 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1000-1500 shock waves. Follow up was carried out up to 3 months after the last session. Perioperative data were compared, including the stone free rate (as a primary outcome) and complications (secondary outcome). Predicting factors for success were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients in group A and 96 patients in group B were included. The stone-free rate was significantly higher in group A (76% vs 38.5%; P < 0.001). Both groups were comparable in complication rates (20% vs 19.8%; P = 0.971). The stone-free rate remained significantly higher in group A in logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 24.011, 95% confidence interval 8.29-69.54; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value stones is associated with an improved stone-free rate without affecting safety. Further validation studies are required using other shock wave lithotripsy machines.

Mini vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a comparative study.

To compare the outcome of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Mini-PNL) versus standard-PNL for renal stones. Retrospective study was performed between March 2010 and May 2013 for patients treated by Mini-PNL or standard-PNL through 18 and 30 Fr tracts, respectively, using pneumatic lithotripsy. Semirigid ureteroscope (8.5/11.5 Fr) was used for Mini-PNL and 24 Fr nephroscope for standard-PNL. Both groups were compared in stone free rate(SFR), complications and operative time using Student-t, Mann-Whitney, Chi square or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate in addition to logistic regression analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Mini-PNL (378) and standard-PNL (151) were nearly comparable in patients and stones criteria including stone burden (3.77 ± 2.21 vs 3.77 ± 2.43 cm2; respectively). There was no significant difference in number of tracts or supracostal puncture. Mini-PNL had longer operative time (68.6 ± 29.09 vs 60.49 ± 11.38 min; p = 0.434), significantly shorter hospital stay (2.43 ± 1.46 vs 4.29 ± 1.28 days) and significantly higher rate of tubeless PNL (75.1 vs 4.6%). Complications were significantly higher in standard-PNL (7.9 vs 20.5%; p < 0.001). SFR was significantly lower in Mini-PNL (89.9 vs 96%; p = 0.022). This significant difference was found with multiple stones and large stone burden (> 2 cm2), but the SFR was comparable between both groups with single stone or stone burden ≤ 2 cm. Logistic regression analysis confirmed significantly higher complications and SFR with standard-PNL but with significantly shorter operative time. Mini-PNL has significantly lower SFR when compared to standard-PNL (but clinically comparable) with markedly reduced complications and hospital stay. Most of cases can be performed tubeless. The significant difference in SFR was found with multiple stones or large stone burden (> 2 cm2), but not with single stones or stone burden ≤ 2 cm2.

Bilateral Single-session vs Staged Mini-percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Stones: A Comparative Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and efficacy of bilateral single-session mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (BSS-Mini-PNL) vs staged-Mini-PNL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with bilateral renal stones indicated for PNL were managed with BSS-Mini-PNL (45 patients and 90 renal units) and prospectively compared vs staged-Mini-PNL (55 patients and 110 renal units) between July 2014 and December 2017. Mini-PNL was done through 18-Fr tract in prone position under regional anesthesia and fluoroscopy using pneumatic lithotripsy. A semirigid ureteroscope (8.5/11.5 Fr) was used. Mann-Whitney, Student t, chi-square, or Fisher's exact tests were used as appropriate. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in characteristics of stones and patients. Stone burden was 3.36 ± 1.61 vs 3.38 ± 1.18 cm2 in BSS-Mini-PNL vs staged-Mini-PNL, respectively. Staghorn stones were present in 13.3% vs 8.2% in BSS-Mini-PNL vs staged-Mini-PNL, respectively. There was no significant difference in the number of required tracts (1.34 ± 0.6 vs 1.25 ± 0.51 tract/renal unit) as well as the rate of tubeless Mini-PNL (81.1% vs 85.5%) or stone-free rate (90% vs 92.7%) in BSS-Mini-PNL vs staged-Mini-PNL, respectively. BSS-Mini-PNL had significantly shorter operative time (126.22 ± 37.2 vs 169.63 ± 61.28 minutes), shorter hospital stay (2 [1-8] vs 4 [2-16] days) and higher hemoglobin loss (1.1 [0.1-2.8] vs 0.5 [0.1-2.17] gm/d) than staged-Mini-PNL. The complications profile (17.8% vs 13.6%) and rate of blood transfusion (4.4% vs 3.6%) were comparable in BSS-Mini-PNL vs staged-Mini-PNL, respectively, without significant difference. CONCLUSION: BSS-Mini-PNL is comparable to staged-PNL as regard stone-free rate and complications according to the selection criteria of the present study. However, BSS-Mini-PNL is associated with significant reduction in the cumulative operative time and hospital stay, which are reflected on the overall cost.