A Comparative Study of Stone Re-Treatment after Lithotripsy
- PMID: 36556495
- PMCID: PMC9780782
- DOI: 10.3390/life12122130
A Comparative Study of Stone Re-Treatment after Lithotripsy
Abstract
The high recurrence rate has always been a problem associated with urolithiasis. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of single interventions, combined therapies, and surgical and nonsurgical interventions. Herein, three lithotripsy procedures—extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL)—were assessed and a retrospective cohort was selected in order to further analyze the association with several risk factors. Firstly, a population-based cohort from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) from 1997 to 2010 was selected. In this study, 350 lithotripsy patients who underwent re-treatment were followed up for at least six years to compare re-treatment rates, with 1400 patients without any lithotripsy treatment being used as the comparison cohort. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was applied. Our results indicate that the risk of repeat urolithiasis treatment was 1.71-fold higher in patients that received lithotripsy when compared to patients that were not treated with lithotripsy (hazard ratio (HR) 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.427−2.048; p < 0.001). Furthermore, a high percentage of repeated treatment was observed in the ESWL group (HR 1.60; 95% CI = 1.292−1.978; p < 0.001). Similarly, the PCNL group was also independently associated with a high chance of repeated treatment (HR 2.32; 95% CI = 1.616−3.329; p < 0.001). Furthermore, age, season, level of care, and Charlson comorbidities index (CCI) should always be taken into consideration as effect factors that are highly correlated with repeated treatment rates.
Keywords: lithotripsy; re-treatment; urolithiasis.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Meta-analysis of Optimal Management of Lower Pole Stone of 10 - 20 mm: Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS) versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) versus Percutaneus Nephrolithotomy (PCNL).Acta Med Indones. 2018 Jan;50(1):18-25. Acta Med Indones. 2018. PMID: 29686172
-
Does lithotripsy increase stone recurrence? A comparative study between extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and non-fragmenting percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Arab J Urol. 2016 Apr 3;14(2):108-14. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2016.02.004. eCollection 2016 Jun. Arab J Urol. 2016. PMID: 27489737 Free PMC article.
-
Long-term evaluation of outcomes and costs of urolithiasis re-interventions after ureteroscopy, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy based on German health insurance claims data.World J Urol. 2022 Dec;40(12):3021-3027. doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04180-3. Epub 2022 Oct 14. World J Urol. 2022. PMID: 36239809 Free PMC article.
-
Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery vs. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy vs. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Lower Pole Renal Stones 10-20 mm : A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.Urol J. 2019 May 5;16(2):97-106. doi: 10.22037/uj.v0i0.4681. Urol J. 2019. PMID: 30604405
-
Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis.Urology. 2015 Apr;85(4):748-56. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.11.041. Epub 2015 Feb 10. Urology. 2015. PMID: 25681251 Review.
References
-
- Trinchieri A., Ostini F., Nespoli R., Rovera F., Montanari E., Zanetti G. A prospective study of recurrence rate and risl factors for recurrrence after a first renal stone. Am. Urol. Assoc. 1999;162:27–30. - PubMed
-
- Hoffman A., Braun M.M., Khayat M. Kidney Disease: Kidney Stones. FP Essent. 2021;509:33–38. - PubMed
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources