Ureteral stenting can be a negative predictor for successful outcome following shock wave lithotripsy in patients with ureteral stones
- PMID: 27847914
- PMCID: PMC5109799
- DOI: 10.4111/icu.2016.57.6.408
Ureteral stenting can be a negative predictor for successful outcome following shock wave lithotripsy in patients with ureteral stones
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate ureteral stenting as a negative predictive factor influencing ureteral stone clearance and to estimate the probability of one-session success in shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) patients with a ureteral stone.
Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 1,651 patients who underwent their first SWL. Among these patients, 680 had a ureteral stone measuring 4-20 mm and were thus eligible for our study. The 57 patients who underwent ureteral stenting during SWL were identified. Maximal stone length (MSL), mean stone density (MSD), skin-to-stone distance (SSD), and stone heterogeneity index (SHI) were determined by pre-SWL noncontrast computed tomography.
Results: After propensity score matching, 399 patients were extracted from the total patient cohort. There were no significant differences between stenting and stentless groups after matching, except for a higher one-session success rate in the stentless group (78.6% vs. 49.1%, p=0.026). In multivariate analysis, shorter MSL, lower MSD, higher SHI, and absence of a stent were positive predictors for one-session success in patients who underwent SWL. Using cutoff values of MSL and MSD obtained from receiver operator curve analysis, in patients with a lower MSD (≤784 HU), the success rate was lower in those with a stent (61.1%) than in those without (83.5%) (p=0.001). However, in patients with a higher MSL (>10 mm), the success rate was lower in those with a stent (23.6%) than in those without (52.2%) (p=0.002).
Conclusions: Ureteral stenting during SWL was a negative predictor of one-session success in patients with a ureteral stone.
Keywords: Lithotripsy; Stents; Treatment outcome; Ureter; Urinary calculi.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have nothing to disclose.
References
-
- Teichman JM. Clinical practice: acute renal colic from ureteral calculus. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:684–693. - PubMed
-
- Seitz C, Tanovic E, Kikic Z, Memarsadeghi M, Fajkovic H. Rapid extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi in colic versus noncolic patients. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1223–1227. - PubMed
-
- Salem S, Mehrsai A, Zartab H, Shahdadi N, Pourmand G. Complications and outcomes following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective study of 3,241 patients. Urol Res. 2010;38:135–142. - PubMed
-
- Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU Guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69:468–474. - PubMed
-
- Morgentaler A, Bridge SS, Dretler SP. Management of the impacted ureteral calculus. J Urol. 1990;143:263–266. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
