Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for pancreatic duct stones in patients with chronic pancreatitis: Are we underutilizing a new technology?

The progressive inflammatory nature of chronic pancreatitis and its sparse therapeutic toolbox remain obstacles in offering patients durable solutions for their symptoms. Obstruction of the main pancreatic duct by either strictures or stones represents a scenario worthy of therapeutic focus, as nearly all patients with pancreatitis eventually have intraductal stones. A more recent option for removal of main duct stones is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). In an effort to explore the role of ESWL in a Canadian setting, we evaluated our initial experience over an 8-year period (2011-2019).

Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less.

PURPOSE: The optimal management of lower pole renal calculi is controversial. We compared shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of patients with small lower pole stones in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 78 patients with 1 cm or less isolated lower pole stones were randomized to SWL or URS. The primary outcome measure was stone-free rate on noncontrast computerized tomography at 3 months. Secondary outcome parameters were length of stay, complication rates, need for secondary procedures and patient derived quality of life measures. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients randomized to SWL (32) or URS (35) completed treatment. The 2 groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, side treated and stone surface area. Operative time was significantly shorter for SWL than URS (66 vs 90 minutes). At 3 months of followup 26 and 32 patients who underwent SWL and URS had radiographic followup that demonstrated a stone-free rate of 35% and 50%, respectively (p not significant). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1 SWL case (unable to target stone) and in 7 URS cases (failed access in 5 and perforation in 2), while postoperative complications occurred in 7 SWL and 7 URS cases. Patient derived quality of life measures favored SWL. CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in stone-free rates between SWL and URS for the treatment of small lower pole renal calculi. However, SWL was associated with greater patient acceptance and shorter convalescence.

Autoimmune pancreatitis associated with renal lesions mimicking metastatic tumours.

Autoimmune pancreatitis is a chronic inflammatory disorder that is often misdiagnosed as pancreatic cancer. Since autoimmune pancreatitis is benign and responds to steroid management, it is important to diagnose it to avoid unnecessary surgical intervention. We describe a novel case of IgG4-associated autoimmune pancreatitis presenting with tubulointerstitial nephritis as renal lesions mimicking metastatic tumours but with no change in renal function.

Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less.

PURPOSE: The optimal management of lower pole renal calculi is controversial. We compared shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of patients with small lower pole stones in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 78 patients with 1 cm or less isolated lower pole stones were randomized to SWL or URS. The primary outcome measure was stone-free rate on noncontrast computerized tomography at 3 months. Secondary outcome parameters were length of stay, complication rates, need for secondary procedures and patient derived quality of life measures. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients randomized to SWL (32) or URS (35) completed treatment. The 2 groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, side treated and stone surface area. Operative time was significantly shorter for SWL than URS (66 vs 90 minutes). At 3 months of followup 26 and 32 patients who underwent SWL and URS had radiographic followup that demonstrated a stone-free rate of 35% and 50%, respectively (p not significant). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1 SWL case (unable to target stone) and in 7 URS cases (failed access in 5 and perforation in 2), while postoperative complications occurred in 7 SWL and 7 URS cases. Patient derived quality of life measures favored SWL. CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in stone-free rates between SWL and URS for the treatment of small lower pole renal calculi. However, SWL was associated with greater patient acceptance and shorter convalescence.