Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as treatment for staghorn stones. Analysis of our case series, spanning 20 years
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48193/revistamexicanadeurologa.v80i5.555Keywords:
Staghorn stones, lithotripsyAbstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and complications of treatment with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for staghorn stones.
Design: A retrospective observational study on staghorn stones treated with ESWL at the Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, between 1990 and 2010.
Results: The study included 157 patients (136 women and 21 men) that underwent ESWL for staghorn stones. Mean number of sessions for fragmentation was 3.39± 1.94, mean number of waves was 10,066.67±6,182.96, mean intensity was 16.24±12.37, mean accumulated energy was 402.69±182.07, and mean resolution time was 7.59±7.97 months. Of the patients analyzed, 106 were stone-free and 51 had small residual fragments. Only 12 patients had stone recurrence. The mortality rate was 0%. Ten percent of the patients had type IIIb Clavien-Dindo complications, 18% had type IIIa, and 3.31% had type II. The effectiveness quotient (Clayman et al.) was 0.49, if needing more than one session was considered retreatment, and 0.71, if all sessions were considered a single treatment.
Study limitations: Given the retrospective, observational study design, the conclusions were relative, due to the heterogeneity between patients regarding urinary tract morphology, stone size, and stone composition.
Originality or value: ESWL in patients with multiple comorbidities is an alternative to surgery.
Conclusions: Even though ESWL is not the treatment of choice for staghorn stones, it is a valid option in selected cases, depending on availability at the center and/or experience of the urologist.
References
Cano-Castiñeira R, Carrasco-Valiente J, Pérula-de-Torres LA, Jiménez-García C, Olaya-Caro I, Criado-Larumbe M, et al. Prevalencia de la litiasis renal en Andalucía: resultados del estudio PreLiRenA. Actas Urológicas Españolas. 2015;39(1):26–31. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2014.02.006
Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Thomas K. EAU Guidelines of Urolithiasis. European Association of Urology; 2018.
Bhatia V, Biyani CS. A comparative study of cystolithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy for bladder stones. Int Urol Nephrol. 1994;26(1):26–31. doi: 10.1007/BF02768241
García-Galisteo E, Sánchez-Martínez N, Molina-Díaz P, López-Rueda B, Baena-González V. Tendencia en los tratamientos invasivos en la litiasis urinaria en un hospital de tercer nivel. Actas Urológicas Españolas. 2015;39(1):32–7. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2014.03.013
American Urological Association. Preminger y col. Neprolithiasis Clinical Guidelines. American Urological Association; 2005.
Lingeman J, Matlaga B, Evan A. Tratamiento quirúrgico de los cálculos en las vías urinarias superiores. In: Urología. 9o. Buenos Aires: Panamericana; 2008. p. 1431–507.
Goodwin WE, Casey WC. Percutaneous antegrade pyelography & translumbar needle nephrostomy in hydronephrosis. AMA Arch Surg. 1956;72(2):357–65. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1956.01270200173030
Fernström I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976;10(3):257–9. doi: 10.1080/21681805.1976.11882084
Arrabal Martín M, Gutiérrez Tejero F, Ocete Martín C, Esteban De Vera H, Miján Ortiz JL, Zuluaga Gómez A. Tratamiento de la litiasis coraliforme. Archivos Españoles de Urología. 2004;57(1):9–24.
Torrecilla C, Vicéns-Morton AJ, Meza IA, Colom S, Etcheverry B, Vila H, et al. Complicaciones de la nefrolitotomía percutánea en decúbito prono de acuerdo a la clasificación de Clavien-Dindo modificada. Actas Urológicas Españolas. 2015;39(3):169–74. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2014.07.006
