Literature DB >> 28299446

Do renal stones that fail lithotripsy require treatment?

Ben Pullar1, Catherine Lunter2, Jane Collie2, Syed Shah2, Nimish Shah2, Sami Hayek2, Oliver J Wiseman2.   

Abstract

The rates of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) appear stable in the UK. However, there is little evidence on the natural history of these calculi if SWL fails. We set to look at the effectiveness of SWL in patients with a single, previously untreated renal stone and the natural history of those stones that failed treatment. We retrospectively reviewed all data from our prospectively collected database of patients undergoing a first treatment for a single renal stone between October 2010 and November 2013. Outcomes after SWL were categorised as success, subsequent intervention needed or conservative management. The medical records of patients managed conservatively were reviewed to determine whether further intervention was required and why. We further sought to define, in those patients where SWL failed, whether subsequent active intervention was needed. For the remainder, we examined whether conservative management was a reasonable management option. 313 patients fitted the inclusion criteria. Of these, 144 were treated successfully. Of the 170 patients with a residual stone, 51 went on to flexible ureteroscopy directly at their next clinical review mainly due to persistent symptoms. 79 patients were managed conservatively, and for 39 follow-up data were unavailable as their follow-up was at a different hospital. 63 patients (80%) were successfully managed conservatively with no recurrence of symptoms over the follow-up period (mean 2 years 4 months). 16 (20%) patients that were initially managed conservatively required subsequent intervention. Of these, 87% had a stone in an upper pole calyx. Conservative management of renal stones after failed SWL is a suitable option for asymptomatic patients with stones not located in the upper pole. For patients with upper pole stones, early intervention is warranted due to the high risk of requiring intervention.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lithotripsy; Stones; Surveillance; Urolithiasis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28299446     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-017-0973-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   3.436


  11 in total

Review 1.  EAU Guidelines on Diagnosis and Conservative Management of Urolithiasis.

Authors:  Christian Türk; Aleš Petřík; Kemal Sarica; Christian Seitz; Andreas Skolarikos; Michael Straub; Thomas Knoll
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  The natural history of asymptomatic urolithiasis.

Authors:  L S Glowacki; M L Beecroft; R J Cook; D Pahl; D N Churchill
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Trends in urological stone disease.

Authors:  Benjamin W Turney; John M Reynard; Jeremy G Noble; Stephen R Keoghane
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-08-26       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL): outcomes from a national SWL database in New Zealand.

Authors:  Cameron E Alexander; Stuart Gowland; Jon Cadwallader; John M Reynard; Benjamin W Turney
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Treatment efficacy and outcomes using a third generation shockwave lithotripter.

Authors:  Andreas Neisius; Jens Wöllner; Christian Thomas; Frederik C Roos; Walburgis Brenner; Christian Hampel; Glenn M Preminger; Joachim W Thüroff; Rolf Gillitzer
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Outcomes of long-term follow-up of patients with conservative management of asymptomatic renal calculi.

Authors:  Li-Tsa Koh; Foo-Cheong Ng; Kok-Kit Ng
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial of prophylactic shock wave lithotripsy for small asymptomatic renal calyceal stones.

Authors:  F X Keeley; K Tilling; A Elves; P Menezes; M Wills; N Rao; R Feneley
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Renal stone epidemiology: a 25-year study in Rochester, Minnesota.

Authors:  C M Johnson; D M Wilson; W M O'Fallon; R S Malek; L T Kurland
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 10.612

9.  Prevalence of urolithiasis in asymptomatic adults: objective determination using low dose noncontrast computerized tomography.

Authors:  Cody J Boyce; Perry J Pickhardt; Edward M Lawrence; David H Kim; Richard J Bruce
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-01-21       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 10.  Is there a role for prophylactic shock wave lithotripsy for asymptomatic calyceal stones?

Authors:  Justin W Collins; Francis X Keeley
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.309

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Optimal Delivery of Follow-Up Care for the Prevention of Stone Recurrence in Urolithiasis Patients: Improving Outcomes.

Authors:  Lazaros Tzelves; Marinos Berdempes; Panagiotis Mourmouris; Iraklis Mitsogiannis; Andreas Skolarikos
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2022-04-19

2.  The utility of automated volume analysis of renal stones before and after shockwave lithotripsy treatment.

Authors:  Helen Wei Cui; Tze Khiang Tan; Frederikke Eichner Christiansen; Palle Jörn Sloth Osther; Benjamin William Turney
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 3.436

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.