ESWL EFFICACY FOR VARIOUS DENSITY STONES (HU) ON PLAIN CT SCAN

AU REHMAN; S ULLAH; SF HAIDER; A SAJJAD

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.823

Authors

AU REHMAN Department of Urology and Transplant, CMH Lahore, Pakistan
S ULLAH Department of Urology and Transplant, CMH Lahore, Pakistan
SF HAIDER Department of Urology Mayo Hospital Lahore, Pakistan
A SAJJAD Department of Urology HITEC Medical College Taxilla, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.823

Keywords:

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Hounsfield Units, Renal Calculi, Treatment Outcome, Urinary Calculi

Abstract

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is a keystone in the harmless management of urinary tract stones, offering a viable alternative to surgical mediation for patients pained by urolithiasis. Objectives: The study aims to find the ESWL efficacy for various density stones (HU) on plain CT scans. Methods: This observational study was conducted at CMH Lahore from February 17, 2024, to May 16, 2024. Data were collected from 180 patients suffering from renal stones. Males represented 60% (108 patients), while females 40% (72 patients). Predominantly, stones were located in the renal pelvis (45%), followed by the upper ureter (30%) and lower ureter (25%). The mean stone size was 10 mm, ranging from 5 to 20 mm, with a corresponding mean stone density of 900 Hounsfield Units (HU) as measured on Plain CT Scan. Results: Data were collected from 180 patients. The mean age of the patients was 50.98±2.34 years. There were 60% male and 40% female patients. According to stone location, 45% are located at the renal pelvis, 30 at the upper ureter and 25% at the lower ureter. A mean reduction in the stone size of 65% post-treatment underscores the procedure's ability to facilitate stone disintegration. Stone-free rates varied based on stone density, with higher rates observed for stones with lower densities: 85% for stones ≤ 700 HU, 75% for stones > 700 HU and ≤ 1000 HU, and 65% for stones > 1000 HU. Conclusion: It is concluded that an accurate assessment of stone density and ESWL score is vital in directing treatment decisions and upgrading outcomes for patients going through ESWL for urinary stones. These findings highlight the importance of personalised treatment approaches and the potential of the ESWL score as an essential tool in clinical practice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Lee S-M, Collin N, Wiseman H, Philip J. Optimisation of shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review of technical aspects to improve outcomes. Translational Andrology and Urology. 2019;8(Suppl 4):S389.

Rabah DM, Mabrouki MS, Farhat KH, Seida MA, Arafa MA, Talic RF. Comparison of escalating, constant, and reduction energy output in ESWL for renal stones: multi-arm prospective randomized study. Urolithiasis. 2017;45:311-6.

Petrides N, Ismail S, Anjum F, Sriprasad S. How to maximize the efficacy of shockwave lithotripsy. Turkish journal of urology. 2020;46(Suppl 1):S19.

Shinde S, Al Balushi Y, Hossny M, Jose S, Al Busaidy S. Factors affecting the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in urinary stone treatment. Oman Medical Journal. 2018;33(3):209.

Yamashita S, Kohjimoto Y, Iwahashi Y, Iguchi T, Nishizawa S, Kikkawa K, et al. Noncontrast computed tomography parameters for predicting shock wave lithotripsy outcome in upper urinary tract stone cases. BioMed Research International. 2018;2018.

Yazici O, Kafkasli A, Erbin A, Hamarat MB, Cubuk A, Sarilar O, et al. Resultados de LEOCH con o sin catéter para el tratamiento de cálculos en la pelvis renal: un estudio aleatorizado. Actas Urológicas Españolas. 2019;43(8):425-30.

Hirsch B, Abt D, Güsewell S, Langenauer J, Betschart P, Pratsinis M, et al. Outcome groups and a practical tool to predict success of shock wave lithotripsy in daily clinical routine. World journal of urology. 2021;39:943-51.

Ichiyanagi O, Fukuhara H, Kurokawa M, Izumi T, Suzuki H, Naito S, et al. Reinforcement of the Triple D score with simple addition of the intrarenal location for the prediction of the stone-free rate after shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones 10–20 mm in diameter. International Urology and Nephrology. 2019;51:239-45.

Yoshioka T, Ikenoue T, Hashimoto H, Otsuki H, Oeda T, Ishito N, et al. Development and validation of a prediction model for failed shockwave lithotripsy of upper urinary tract calculi using computed tomography information: the S 3 HoCKwave score. World Journal of Urology. 2020;38:3267-73.

Herout R, Baunacke M, Groeben C, Aksoy C, Volkmer B, Schmidt M, et al. Contemporary treatment trends for upper urinary tract stones in a total population analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2019: will shock wave lithotripsy become extinct? World Journal of Urology. 2022;40(1):185-91.

Fan J, Zhang T, Zhu W, Gurioli A, Ketegwe IR, Zeng G. The role of super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal stones (LPSs) after the failure of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Urolithiasis. 2019;47:297-301.

Jacobsen MC, Thrower SL, Ger RB, Leng S, Court LE, Brock KK, et al. Multi‐energy computed tomography and material quantification: Current barriers and opportunities for advancement. Medical physics. 2020;47(8):3752-71.

Lalchan S, Sharma P, Subash K, Gyawali M, Poudel A. Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Detecting Ureteric Calculi in Patients with Renal Colic Taking Non-Contrast Multidetector Computerized Tomography of Kidney, Ureter, and Bladder (CT KUB) as the Gold Standard. Nepal Journal Of Medical Sciences. 2022;7(1):56-61.

Masoumi N, Langroudi TF, Bagheri F, Alirezaei A, Asgari MA, Dehghani M. Determining the opacity of urinary stone using only the Computed Tomography imaging, Is KUB still needed? Men's Health Journal. 2021;5(1):e25-e.

Choo MS, Uhmn S, Kim JK, Han JH, Kim D-H, Kim J, et al. A prediction model using machine learning algorithm for assessing stone-free status after single session shock wave lithotripsy to treat ureteral stones. The Journal of urology. 2018;200(6):1371-7.