Investig Clin Urol.  2018 Jan;59(1):25-31. 10.4111/icu.2018.59.1.25.

Evaluating the importance of different computed tomography scan-based factors in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones

• Waqas M
• Saqib IU
• Imran Jamil M
• Ayaz Khan
• Akhter S

• KMID: 2399261
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2018.59.1.25

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the impact of various computed tomography scan-based parameters of renal stones on the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent ESWL for renal stones (sized 5-20 mm) from January 2013 to December 2016. We evaluated body mass index, location of the stone, skin-to-stone distance (SSD), stone attenuation value (SAV), stone diameter, Hounsfield density, stone area, and stone volume. Statistical analysis was done and significance was confirmed by multivariate logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS
Of the 203 patients 122 (60.1%) had successful clearance of the stone. The presence of a double J stenting, a lower pole location, a higher SAV, higher Hounsfield density, larger stone area, larger stone diameter, and higher stone volume were negative predictors of ESWL outcome. When these parameters were analyzed with multivariate logistic regression analysis, stone location, SSD, and SAV were the only significant independent predictors of the outcome of ESWL.
CONCLUSIONS
Stone location, SSD, and SAV are reliable and strong predictors of ESWL outcome for the treatment of renal stones.

Keyword

Lithotripsy; Multidetector computed tomography; Nephrolithiasis; Treatment outcome

MeSH Terms

Body Mass Index
Humans
Lithotripsy*
Logistic Models
Multidetector Computed Tomography
Nephrolithiasis
Retrospective Studies
Shock*
Silver Sulfadiazine
Stents
Treatment Outcome
Silver Sulfadiazine

Reference

1. Junuzovic D, Prstojevic JK, Hasanbegovic M, Lepara Z. Evaluation of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL): efficacy in treatment of urinary system stones. Acta Inform Med. 2014; 22:309–314.

2. Jan H, Akbar I, Kamran H, Khan J. Frequency of renal stone disease in patients with urinary tract infection. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2008; 20:60–62.

3. Andrabi Y, Patino M, Das CJ, Eisner B, Sahani DV, Kambadakone A. Advances in CT imaging for urolithiasis. Indian J Urol. 2015; 31:185–193.

4. Buchholz NP, Abbas F, Afzal M, Khan R, Rizvi I, Talati J. The prevalence of silent kidney stones--an ultrasonographic screening study. J Pak Med Assoc. 2003; 53:24–25.

5. Ather MH, Abid F, Akhtar S, Khawaja K. Stone clearance in lower pole nephrolithiasis after extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy-the controversy continues. BMC Urol. 2003; 3:1.

6. Park BH, Choi H, Kim JB, Chang YS. Analyzing the effect of distance from skin to stone by computed tomography scan on the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy stone-free rate of renal stones. Korean J Urol. 2012; 53:40–43.

7. Al-Ali BM, Patzak J, Lutfi A, Pummer K, Augustin H. Impact of urinary stone volume on computed tomography stone attenuations measured in Hounsfield units in a large group of Austrian patients with urolithiasis. Cent European J Urol. 2014; 67:289–295.

8. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Panagopoulos G, Bruno JJ, Fracchia JA. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield units. Urology. 2005; 65:33–36.

9. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, Nyhuis AW, Woods JR. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol. 1994; 151:663–667.

10. Massoud AM, Abdelbary AM, Al-Dessoukey AA, Moussa AS, Zayed AS, Mahmmoud O. The success of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy based on the stone-attenuation value from non-contrast computer tomography. Arab J Urol. 2014; 12:155–161.

11. Geraghty R, Burr J, Simmonds N, Somani BK. Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: parallel group comparison during the same time period. Urol Ann. 2015; 7:46–48.

12. Semins MJ, Matlaga BR. Strategies to optimize shock wave lithotripsy outcome: patient selection and treatment parameters. World J Nephrol. 2015; 4:230–234.

13. Mostafavi MR, Ernst RD, Saltzman B. Accurate determination of chemical composition of urinary calculi by spiral computerized tomography. J Urol. 1998; 159:673–675.

14. Motley G, Dalrymple N, Keesling C, Fischer J, Harmon W. Hounsfield unit density in the determination of urinary stone composition. Urology. 2001; 58:170–173.

15. Patel SR, Haleblian G, Zabbo A, Pareek G. Hounsfield units on computed tomography predict calcium stone subtype composition. Urol Int. 2009; 83:175–180.

16. Spettel S, Shah P, Sekhar K, Herr A, White MD. Using Hounsfield unit measurement and urine parameters to predict uric acid stones. Urology. 2013; 82:22–26.

17. Gupta NP, Ansari MS, Kesarvani P, Kapoor A, Mukhopadhyay S. Role of computed tomography with no contrast medium enhancement in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. BJU Int. 2005; 95:1285–1288.

18. Hameed DA, Elgammal MA, ElGanainy EO, Hageb A, Mohammed K, El-Taher AM, et al. Comparing non contrast computerized tomography criteria versus dual X-ray absorptiometry as predictors of radio-opaque upper urinary tract stone fragmentation after electromagnetic shockwave lithotripsy. Urolithiasis. 2013; 41:511–515.

19. El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Abou-El-Ghar ME, Awad BA, Sheir KZ. Kidney stone size and hounsfield units predict successful shockwave lithotripsy in children. Urology. 2013; 81:880–884.

20. Ouzaid I, Al-qahtani S, Dominique S, Hupertan V, Fernandez P, Hermieu JF, et al. A 970 Hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients' selection for extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from a prospective study. BJU Int. 2012; 110:E438–E442.

21. Foda K, Abdeldaeim H, Youssif M, Assem A. Calculating the number of shock waves, expulsion time, and optimum stone parameters based on noncontrast computerized tomography characteristics. Urology. 2013; 82:1026–1031.

22. McClain PD, Lange JN, Assimos DG. Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review. Rev Urol. 2013; 15:49–60.

23. Tanaka M, Yokota E, Toyonaga Y, Shimizu F, Ishii Y, Fujime M, et al. Stone attenuation value and cross-sectional area on computed tomography predict the success of shock wave lithotripsy. Korean J Urol. 2013; 54:454–459.

24. Bandi G, Meiners RJ, Pickhardt PJ, Nakada SY. Stone measurement by volumetric three-dimensional computed tomography for predicting the outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. BJU Int. 2009; 103:524–528.

25. Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT Jr, Nakada SY. Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology. 2005; 66:941–944.

26. Badran YA, Abdelaziz AS, Shehab MA, Mohamed HA, Emara AA, Elnabtity AM, et al. Is scoring system of computed tomography based metric parameters can accurately predicts shock wave lithotripsy stone-free rates and aid in the development of treatment strategies? Urol Ann. 2016; 8:197–202.

27. Perks AE, Schuler TD, Lee J, Ghiculete D, Chung DG, D'A Honey RJ, et al. Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urology. 2008; 72:765–769.

28. Young A, Ismail M, Papatsoris AG, Barua JM, Calleary JG, Masood J. Entonox® inhalation to reduce pain in common diagnostic and therapeutic outpatient urological procedures: a review of the evidence. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2012; 94:8–11.