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.

Percutaneous nephrostomy versus JJ ureteric stent as the initial drainage method in kidney stone patients presenting with acute kidney injury: A prospective randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare percutaneous nephrostomy tube versus JJ stent as an initial urinary drainage procedure in kidney stone patients presenting with acute kidney injury. METHODS: Between January 2017 and January 2019, 143 patients with acute kidney injury secondary to obstructive kidney stone were prospectively randomized into the percutaneous nephrostomy tube group (71 patients) and JJ stent group (72 patients) at Beni-Suef University Hospital, Beni-Suef, Egypt. Exclusion criteria included candidates for acute dialysis, fever (>38°C), pyonephrosis, pregnancy and uncontrolled coagulopathy. The period required for serum creatinine normalization, failure of insertion, operative and fluoroscopy time were recorded. Definitive stone management for proximal ureteral stones >1.5 cm consisted of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the percutaneous nephrostomy group and ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for the JJ stent group. For stone size <1.5 cm, ureteroscopy or shockwave lithotripsy was carried out for both groups. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy was carried out for renal stones >2 cm, and shockwave lithotripsy for stones <2 cm. Distal and mid ureteral stones were treated by ureteroscopy. RESULTS: The percutaneous nephrostomy group had shorter operative time (P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the recovery period for normalization of serum creatinine between both groups (P = 0.120). Procedural failure, ureteric mucosal injury and perforations increased in the case of male sex, stone size >1.5 cm and upper ureteric stones in the JJ stent group. Procedural failure, pelvic perforations and intraoperative bleeding increased in case of male sex, mild hydronephrosis and stone size >2.5 cm in the percutaneous nephrostomy group. Suprapubic pain, urethral pain and lower urinary tract symptoms were significant in the JJ stent group. The presence of a JJ stent directed us toward ureteroscopy (P = 0.002) and the presence of a percutaneous nephrostomy directed us toward percutaneous nephrolithotomy (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous nephrostomy facilitates subsequent percutaneous nephrolithotomy, especially when carried out by a urologist, and it has a higher insertion success rate, a shorter operative time and a lesser incidence of postoperative urinary tract infection than a JJ stent. A JJ stent facilitates subsequent ureteroscopy, but operative complications can increase in the case of proximal ureteral stones >1.5 cm.

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.

Outcome of Botulinum Toxin-A intraprostatic injection for benign prostatic hyperplasia induced lower urinary tract symptoms: A prospective multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to determine the factors predicting the outcome of intraprostatic injection of Botulinum Toxin-A (BTX-A) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-induced lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and to evaluate its efficacy and safety. METHODS: Between September 2016 and May 2018, 45 Egyptian patients, with BPH-induced LUTS were included; the indication was a failure of medical treatment, unfit, or refusing surgical intervention. Measurements of prostate size by TRUS, total PSA level before and 12 weeks after injection. IPSS, uroflow, and postvoiding residual urine (PVR) were measured before injection, 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks postinjection. 100 U BTX-A vial was diluted with 10 mL of saline then injected into the transition zone at base and midzone of the prostate by TRUS. RESULTS: The mean patients' age was 64.4 ± 6.6 years. Mean baseline IPSS 24.06 decreased to 18.75 at 2 weeks and progressively decreased to 16.37 at 12 weeks (P < 0.001), Q max of 9.08 mL/s. increased to 10.44 at 2 weeks and 11.44 at 12 weeks (P < 0.001), mean prostate volume was 67.44cc; decreased to 66.06cc (P < 0.001) at 12 weeks and mean residual urine was 82.62 mL and decreased to 57.66 mL at 12 weeks. DISCUSSION: Intraprostatic injection of BTX-A as modality treatment of LUTS/BPH significantly improve IPSS, Q max , PVR, and decrease prostate volume. We can suspect better results with this line of treatment in patients with IPSS ≤ 22 and Q max ≤ 10 mL/min and prostate volume ≤ 56.5cc.

Predictive value of the immediate effect of first dose of tamsulosin on lower urinary tract symptoms improvement in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients.

OBJECTIVES: The objective is to study the effect of tamsulosin within hours after the first dose and its prediction of the future improvement of LUTS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2016 until August 2017, 340 patients aged over 40 years with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-related symptoms were prospectively enrolled; 0.4 mg tamsulosin for 3 months was given. The first visit was before beginning of tamsulosin; uroflowmetry (UFM), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), international prostate symptom score (IPSS), and quality of life (QoL) were measured. The second visit was after 6 h from the administration of tamsulosin. UFM and PVR were measured. The third visit was after 1 month and the fourth visit was after 3 months, on which UFM, PVR, IPSS, and QoL were also measured. RESULTS: The mean patients' age was 63 ± 6.18 and the mean prostate volume was 52.23 ± 24.59 cc. The mean Qmax at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th visits was 10.28 ± 3.06 s, 14.58 ± 4.84 s, 14.46 ± 4.94 s, and 14.28 ± 5.07 s, respectively, P = 0.04. The mean voiding time at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th visits was 41.24 ± 27.18 s, 33.84 ± 18.14 s, 31.96 ± 22.02 s, and 30.14 ± 17.52 s, respectively, P = 0.03. The mean PVR at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th visits was 46.40 ± 22.14 ml, 27.76 ± 26.10 ml, 25.16 ± 28.36 ml, and 25.58 ± 28.10 ml, respectively, P = 0.001. The first dose of tamsulosin significantly increases Qmax and decreases voiding time and residual urine (RU); there was no statistical significant difference between 1st dose, 1 and 3 months in Qmax, voiding time, and RU. QOL and IPSS were significantly improved after 1 and 3 months, P < 0.001. CONCLUSION: The first dose of tamsulosin improves UFM and predicts the mid-term change in UFM as well as IPSS and QoL indices in the treatment of BPH-related LUTS.

The success of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy based on the stone-attenuation value from non-contrast computed tomography.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of the urinary stone-attenuation value (SAV, in Hounsfield units, HU) from non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) for predicting the success of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 305 patients with renal calculi of ⩽30 mm and upper ureteric calculi of ⩽20 mm. The SAV was measured using NCCT. Numerical variables were compared using a one-way analysis of variance with posthoc multiple two-group comparisons. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis models were used to test the preferential effect of the independent variable(s) on the success of ESWL. RESULTS: Patients were grouped according to the SAV as group 1 (⩽500 HU, 81 patients), group 2 (501-1000 HU, 141 patients) and group 3 (>1000 HU, 83 patients). ESWL was successful in 253 patients (83%). The rate of stone clearance was 100% in group 1, 95.7% (135/141) in group 2 and 44.6% (37/83) in group 3 (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The SAV value is an independent predictor of the success of ESWL and a useful tool for planning stone treatment. Patients with a SAV ⩾956 HU are not ideal candidates for ESWL. The inclusion criteria for ESWL of stones with a SAV <500 HU can be expanded with regard to stone size, site, age, renal function and coagulation profile. In patients with a SAV of 500-1000 HU, factors like a body mass index of >30 kg/m(2) and a lower calyceal location make them less ideal for ESWL.