Flexible ureterorenoscopy and Ho: YAG laser fragmentation for stones with a mean density greater than 900HU: An alternative to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy

Stylianos Kontos, Athanasios Papatsoris, Sarath K. Nalagatla

Abstract


Background: A number of patient and stone characteristics predict SWL failure. When one or more of these factors are present, therapies such as flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium: YAG lasertripsy (FURSL) have been promoted, with improved stone free rates (SFRs). There has been no study of FURSL efficacy in the treatments of stones with a density greater than 900 Hounsfield units (HU), another predictor of treatment failure with SWL. We aimed to assess the efficacy of FURSL in such cases.

Patients and methods: Patients undergoing FURSL from April 2012 - April 2014, under the care of a single surgeon were identified, and cases with at least one stone with a mean stone density greater than 900HU were assessed retrospectively. Patient and stone characteristics were recorded. Treatment outcomes and complications were detailed. Analysis of the differences in patient and stone qualities related to SFR after the first procedure were made.

Results: Sixty - six patients were included. The mean age was 58 (35 - 78) years. The mean stone density was 1216 (902 - 1768) HU. The mean maximal stone diameter was 13.2 (6.3 - 33) mm.  Most stones were either renal pelvic or lower calyceal in position, accounting for 18 (27.3%) patients each. SFR after the first FURSL treatment was 74.2%. Only 7 (10.6%) patients had procedure associated morbidity. When comparing patients who were stone free with one treatment of FURSL to those who were not, there was no significant difference in gender, mean age or mean stone density. There was however, a significant difference in maximal stone diameter (9.1mm and 15.1mm respectively, p< 0.001) and position of the stones (p< 0.001).

Conclusion: This study confirms FURSL is safe and effective for calculi with a mean density greater than 900HU. Improved SFR, and possibly favourable complication rate, compared with SWL has been shown and FURSL could be considered as the treatment of choice in such cases.

 

 

Η πυκνότητα (density) των πυελοκαλυκικών λίθων αποτελεί έναν από τους κύριους παράγοντες που πρέπει να λαμβάνει υπόψιν του ο ουρολόγος πριν καταλήξει στη μέθοδο αντιμετώπισής τους. Λίθοι με πυκνότητα πάνω από 900 HU είναι δύσκολο να αντιμετωπιστούν με τη χρήση υπερήχων, ακόμα και με πολλαπλές συνεδρίες, ενώ αντιθέτως η εύκαμπτη ουρητηροσκόπηση και η χρήση Laser Holmium είναι ασφαλής και οικονομική μέθοδος, που ίσως θα έπρεπε να θεωρηθεί θεραπεία εκλογής για «σκληρούς» λίθους.

 


Keywords


flexible ureterorenoscopy; Ho: YAG laser fragmentation; stone density; εύκαμπτη ουρητηροσκόπηση, Ho: YAG laser λιθοτριψία, πυκνότητα λίθου

Full Text:

PDF

References


Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC (2003) Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976-1994. Kidney international 63: 1817 - 1823.

Hesse A, Brandle E, Wilbert D, Kohrmann KU, Alken P (2003) Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. European urology 44: 709 - 713.

Strope SA, Wolf JS, Jr., Hollenbeck BK (2010) Changes in gender distribution of urinary stone disease. Urology 75: 543 - 546, 546 e541.

Alexander RT, Hemmelgarn BR, Wiebe N, Bello A, Morgan C, et al. (2012) Kidney stones and kidney function loss: A cohort study. BMJ 345: e5287.

Sakhaee K (2008) Nephrolithiasis as a systemic disorder. Current opinion in nephrology and hypertension 17: 304-309.

Eisner BH, Kambadakone A, Monga M, Anderson JK, Thoreson AA, et al. (2009) Computerized tomography magnified bone windows are superior to standard soft tissue windows for accurate measurement of stone size: An in vitro and clinical study. The Journal of urology 181: 1710 - 1715.

Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, et al. (2009) The Clavien - Dindo classification of surgical complications: five - year experience. Annals of surgery 250: 187 - 196.

Brown JA, Hadj - Moussa M (2013) Effect of High Shock Number on Acute Complication Development Following Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy. Journal of endourology / Endourological Society.

Streem SB, Yost A, Mascha E (1996) Clinical implications of clinically insignificant store fragments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. The Journal of urology 155: 1186-1190.

Greene TD, Joseph JV, Erturk E (2009) Evaluation and management of post - shock wave lithotripsy pain with third - generation lithotriptors using rofecoxib. Journal of endourology / Endourological Society 23: 395 - 398.

Dhar NB, Thornton J, Karafa MT, Streem SB (2004) A multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with subcapsular hematoma formation following electromagnetic shock wave lithotripsy. The Journal of urology 172: 2271 - 2274.

Silberstein J, Lakin CM, Kellogg Parsons J (2008) Shock wave lithotripsy and renal hemorrhage. Reviews in urology 10: 236 - 241.

Lee HY, Yang YH, Shen JT, Jang MY, Shih PM, et al. (2013) Risk Factors Survey for Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy-Induced Renal Hematoma. Journal of endourology / Endourological Society.

Muller - Mattheis VG, Schmale D, Seewald M, Rosin H, Ackermann R (1991) Bacteremia during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of renal calculi. The Journal of urology 146: 733 - 736.

Lingeman JE, Coury TA, Newman DM, Kahnoski RJ, Mertz JH, et al. (1987) Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. The Journal of urology 138: 485 - 490.

Maker V, Layke J (2004) Gastrointestinal injury secondary to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: A review of the literature since its inception. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 198: 128-135.

Al Karawi MA, Mohamed AR, el-Etaibi KE, Abomelha MS, Seed RF (1987) Extracorporeal shock - wave lithotripsy (ESWL) - induced erosions in upper gastrointestinal tract. Prospective study in 40 patients. Urology 30: 224 - 227.

Rippel CA, Nikkel L, Lin YK, Danawala Z, Olorunnisomo V, et al. (2012) Residual fragments following ureteroscopic lithotripsy: Incidence and predictors on postoperative computerized tomography. The Journal of urology 188: 2246 - 2251.

Papatsoris A1, Chrisofos M, Skolarikos A, Varkarakis I, Mitsogiannis I, Mygdalis V, Dellis A, Buchholz N, Masood J. (2013) Update on intracorporeal laser lithotripsy. Minervamedica104(1): 55 - 60.

Papatsoris A1, Sarica K. (2012) Flexible ureterorenoscopic management of upper tract pathologies. Urol Res. 40(6):639 - 46. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-012-0508-9. Epub 2012 Sep 13.

Bach C1, Nesar S, Kumar P, Goyal A, Kachrilas S, Papatsoris A, Masood J, Buchholz N. (2012) The new digital flexible ureteroscopes: ‘size does matter’ increased ureteric access sheath use! Urol Int;89(4): 408 -11. DOI: 10.1159/000341429. Epub 2012 Sep 4.

Skolarikos AA1, Papatsoris AG, Mitsogiannis IC, Chatzidarellis L, Liakouras C, Deliveliotis C. (2009) Current status of ureteroscopic treatment for urolithiasis. Int J Urol. 16(9):713 - 7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2009.02364.

Pardalidis NP1, Papatsoris AG, Kapotis CG, Kosmaoglou EV. (2006)Treatment of impacted lower third ureteral stones with the use of the ureteral access sheath. Urol Res. 34(3):211 - 4. Epub 2006 Feb 14.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19264/hj.v27i4.101