Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015;68(3):358-64.
doi: 10.5173/ceju.2015.611. Epub 2015 Oct 15.

Does ureteral stenting matter for stone size? A retrospectıve analyses of 1361 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients

Burak Ozkan  1 , Cagatay Dogan  2 , Gulce Ecem Can  2 , Nejat Tansu  2 , Ahmet Erozencı  2 , Bulent Onal  2
Affiliations

Does ureteral stenting matter for stone size? A retrospectıve analyses of 1361 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients

Burak Ozkan et al. Cent European J Urol. 2015.

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy of ureteral stents for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment of pelvis renalis stones and to compare the results and complications in stented and non-stented patients.

Material and methods: Between 1995 and 2011, 1361 patients with pelvis renalis stones were treated with SWL. Patients were subdivided into three groups according to stone burden: ≤1 cm(2) (group 1; n = 514), 1.1 to 2 cm(2) (group 2; n = 530) and >2 cm(2) (group 3; n = 317). Each group was divided into subgroups of patients who did and did not undergo ureteral stent implantation before SWL treatment. The efficacy of treatment was evaluated by determining the effectiveness quotient (EQ). Statistical analysis was performed by chi-square, Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results: Of the 514, 530 and 317 patients in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively, 30 (6%), 44 (8%) and 104 (33%) patients underwent auxiliary stent implantation. Steinstrasse rates did not differ significantly between stented and non-stented patients in each group. The EQ was calculated as 62%, 33% and 70% respectively in non-stented, stented and totally for group 1. This ratio calculated as 58%, 25% and 63% for group 2 and 62%, 26% and 47% for group 3. Stone-free rates were significantly higher for non-stented than for stented patients in groups 2 and 3.

Conclusions: Stone free rates are significantly higher in non-stented than in stented patients with pelvis renalis stones >1 cm(2), whereas steinstrasse rates are not affected.

Keywords: SWL; pelvis renalis stone; stent; stone size.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E. Extracoporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. Lancet. 1980;13:1265–1268. - PubMed
    1. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al. Guidelines on Urolithiasis; European Association of Urology. 2014. pp. 1–77.
    1. Obek C, Onal B, Kantay K, et al. The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave ıithotripsy for Isolated lower pole calculi in comparison with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi. J Urol. 2001;166:2081–2084. - PubMed
    1. Drach GW, Dretler S, Fair W, et al. Report of the United States cooperative study of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1986;135:1127–1133. - PubMed
    1. Gillenwater JY. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for the treatment of urinary calculi. In: Gillenwater JY, Grayhack JT, Howards SS, Duckett JW, editors. Adult and Pediatric Urology. St Louis: Mosby Year Book; 1991. pp. 695–710.

LinkOut - more resources