Advertisement

Urolithiasis

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Does the presence or degree of hydronephrosis affect the stone disintegration efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Zihao He
  • Shanfeng Yin
  • Xiaolu Duan
  • Guohua ZengEmail author
Original Paper
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence or degree of hydronephrosis (HN) affects the stone disintegration efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). A comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to retrieve relevant studies. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for comparisons of outcomes of interest. In total, seven comparative studies with 2033 patients were included. Overall results indicated no significant difference in stone-free rate (SFR) and retreatment rate between two groups. Subgroup analysis further revealed: (1) compared with moderate or severe HN, non-HN SWL brought significantly lower retreatment rate (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.52–0.87, P = 0.002 and RR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.40–0.76, P = 0.0003, respectively) and shorter clearance time (MD − 3.80, 95%CI − 5.81 to − 1.79, P = 0.0002 and MD – 5.93, 95%CI − 10.29 to − 1.57, P = 0.008, respectively); (2) SWLs performed without stone-induced HN or with artificial HN were associated with significantly higher SFR (RR 1.11, 95%CI 1.04−1.18, P = 0.001 and RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.87−0.99, P = 0.02, respectively); (3) non-HN SWL brought significantly higher SFR than HN group when treating proximal ureteral stones (RR 1.14, 95%CI 1.04–1.24, P = 0.005). Generally, SWLs performed with HN were shown to offer similar stone disintegration efficacy to those without HN. However, it seemed preferable to perform SWL: (1) without severe to moderate HN or stone-induced HN; (2) with artificial HN; (3) without HN when treating proximal ureteral stones.

Keywords

Shock wave lithotripsy SWL Hydronephrosis Meta-analysis Systematic review 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financed by the Guangdong provincial Science and Technology Plan Project, China (No. 2017B030314108).

Author contributions

ZH involved in project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing; SY took part in data collection and data analysis; XD participated in manuscript editing; GZ took part in project development and manuscript editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

No ethical concerns.

References

  1. 1.
    Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E (1980) Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. Lancet 2(8207):1265–1268.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(80)92335-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaussy C, Schmiedt E, Jocham D, Brendel W, Forssmann B, Walther V (1982) First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J Urol 127(3):417–420.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)53841-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Resorlu B, Unsal A, Ziypak T, Diri A, Atis G, Guven S, Sancaktutar AA, Tepeler A, Bozkurt OF, Oztuna D (2013) Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones. World J Urol 31(6):1581–1586.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0991-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Das MK, Jha SK (2015) A prospective randomized comparison between shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower caliceal stones </=2 cm: a single-center experience. J Endourol 29(5):575–579.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0473 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delakas D, Karyotis I, Daskalopoulos G, Lianos E, Mavromanolakis E (2003) Independent predictors of failure of shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones employing a second-generation lithotripter. J Endourol 17(4):201–205.  https://doi.org/10.1089/089277903765444302 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lingeman JE, Shirrell WL, Newman DM, Mosbaugh PG, Steele RE, Woods JR (1987) Management of upper ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 138(4):720–723.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)43351-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kageyama S, Hirai S, Higashi Y (2000) An investigation of factors associated with failure of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi. Hinyokika kiyo 46(6):371–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirkali Z, Esen AA, Celebi I, Guler C (1993) Are obstructing ureteral stones more difficult to treat with extracorporeal electromagnetic shock wave lithotripsy? J Endourol 7(4):277–279.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1993.7.277 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demirbas M, Kose AC, Samli M, Guler C, Kara T, Karalar M (2004) Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for solitary distal ureteral stones: does the degree of urinary obstruction affect success? J Endourol 18(3):237–240.  https://doi.org/10.1089/089277904773582822 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Youssef RF, El-Hefnawy AS, Sheir KZ (2007) Impact of the degree of hydronephrosis on the efficacy of in situ extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi. Scand J Urol Nephrol 41(3):208–213.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00365590601068892 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Youssef RF, El-Hefnawy AS, Sheir KZ (2007) Does degree of hydronephrosis affect success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones? Urology 69(3):431–435.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.11.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seitz C, Fajkovic H, Waldert M, Tanovic E, Remzi M, Kramer G, Marberger M (2006) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones: Does the presence and degree of hydronephrosis affect success? Eur Urol 49(2):378–383.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.09.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    AbdelRazek M, Hassan A, AbdelKader MS, Abolyosr A (2019) SWL outcome in artificial hydronephrotic vs. non-hydronephrotic kidney for preschool children with high-density renal stones. World journal of urology 37(5):937–941.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2471-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hazar IA, Cakiroglu B, Sinanoglu O, Akgun FS, Arda E, Yuksel I, Akdere H (2018) Does mild hydronephrosis induced by full-bladder improve outcomes in patients undergoing shock wave lithotripsy for lower calyceal stones?: A prospective randomized study. Urol J 15(3):92–95.  https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v0i0.3923 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4:1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Web site. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025
  17. 17.
    Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25(9):603–605.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22(4):719–748PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chang KD, Lee JY, Park SY, Kang DH, Lee HH, Cho KS (2017) Impact of pretreatment hydronephrosis on the success rate of shock wave lithotripsy in patients with ureteral stone. Yonsei Med J 58(5):1000–1005.  https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2017.58.5.1000 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zomorrodi A, Golivandan J, Samady J (2008) Effect of diuretics on ureteral stone therapy with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 19(3):397–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Azm TA, Higazy H (2002) Effect of diuresis on extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of ureteric calculi. Scand J Urol Nephrol 36(3):209–212.  https://doi.org/10.1080/003655902320131893 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gee WF, Kiviat MD (1975) Ureteral response to partial obstruction. Smooth muscle hyperplasia and connective tissue proliferation. Invest Urol 12(4):309–316PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singh I, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Dogra PN, Ansari MS, Seth A, Aron M (2001) Impact of power index, hydroureteronephrosis, stone size, and composition on the efficacy of in situ boosted ESWL for primary proximal ureteral calculi. Urology 58(1):16–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01088-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zihao He
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Shanfeng Yin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xiaolu Duan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Guohua Zeng
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery CenterThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Guangzhou Institute of UrologyGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Guangdong Key Laboratory of UrologyGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations