Advertisement

Comparison of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Percutaneous Nephrostolithotomy for the Treatment of Renal Calculi in Lower Pole Calices

  • Elspeth M. McDougall
  • John D. Denstedt
  • R. D. Brown
  • Ralph V. Clayman
  • Glenn M. Preminger
  • Bruce L. McClennan

Abstract

Lower pole calyceal calculi can be treated by percutaneous nephrostolithotomy (PCNL) or by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). In previous studies investigators have noted that stones in lower calices treated with ESWL have a poor clearance rate. This study compared PCNL and ESWL treatments for solitary lower calyceal stones. Thirty-five patients with lower pole calyceal stones were treated with ESWL (Dornier HM3), and 29 patients were treated with PCNL between March 1983 and January 1988. Pretreatment intravenous pyelograms of the ESWL patients were examined, and the length and width of the lower pole infundibulum were recorded. The mean stone diameter was 9 mm (range, 3 mm to 30 mm) in the ESWL group and 10 mm (range, 4 mm to 27 mm) in the PCNL group. All patients in the ESWL group had adequate stone fragmentation (particles < 4 mm). Stone composition was similar for the two groups. A KUB was obtained at a median follow-up of 13 months in 94% of ESWL patients and 90% of PCNL patients. There was a 59% stone-free rate for the ESWL group and an 85% stone-free rate for the PCNL group. The ESWL stone-free rate did not correlate with infundibular width or infundibular length. The ESWL patients spent 2.5 days in the hospital y 6.1 days for the PCNL patients. The PCNL patients had a two-fold greater recovery time (19.3 days y 10 days). Interestingly, there was no difference between the two treatment groups in regard to recurrent stone disease; 10% of ESWL patients had a recurrence within 18 months, and 11% of PCNL patients had a recurrence with 22 months following treatment.

PCNL for calyceal stones is more invasive, has a higher morbidity, and is associated with more serious complications than ESWL. Thus, PCNL should be reserved for patients with small stones who fail primary ESWL therapy.

Keywords

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Stone Size Stone Diameter Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Treatment Calyceal Stone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rupel E and Brown R: Nephroscopy with removal of stone following nephrostomy for obstructive calculus. J Urol 46: 177, 1941.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaussy C, Schmiedt E, Jocham D, et al: First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J Urol 127: 417, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drach GW, Dretler SP, Fair WR, et al: Report of the United States cooperative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 135: 1127, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lingeman JE, Coury TA, Newman DM, et al: Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Uro1138: 485, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    PremingerGM, Clayman RV, Hardeman SW, et al: Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy y open surgery for renal calculi. JAMA 254: 1054, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pode D, Verstandig A, Shapiro A, et al: Treatment of complete staghorn calculi by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy with special reference to internal stenting. J Urol 140: 260, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graff J, Diederichs W, Schulze H: Long-term follow-up in 1,003 ESWL patients. J Urol 140: 479, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilbert DM, El Seweifi A, Allen P: The importance of stone size for extracorporeal shock wave lithoripsy. Akt Urol 17: 181, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Newman DM and Scott JW: Long-term follow-up of 2,617 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. J Urol 147: 141A, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schulz E, Hengst E, Brundig P, et al: Disturbed urinary transport in the pelvi-calyceal system in calcium oxalate stone patients. Urol Res 15: 109, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elbers J, Seline P, Clayman RV: Effect of shock wave lithotripsy on urease-positive calculogenic bacteria. J Endourol 1: 83, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pode D, Lenkovsky W, Chapiro A, et al: Persistent urinary infection associated with infected stones. J Urol 140: 257, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michaels EK, Fowler JE, Mariano M: Bacteriuria following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of infected stones. J Urol 140: 254, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elspeth M. McDougall
    • 1
  • John D. Denstedt
    • 1
  • R. D. Brown
    • 1
  • Ralph V. Clayman
    • 1
  • Glenn M. Preminger
    • 2
  • Bruce L. McClennan
    • 1
  1. 1.Divisions of Urologic Surgery and RadiologyWashington University School of Medicine and Midwest Stone InstituteSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.University of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations