SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY VERSUS PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY FOR THE TREATMENT OF MODERET SIZE KIDNEY STONES IN THE MIDDLE AND UPPER POLE

Ivica Stojanoski; Toni Krstev; Sotir Stavridis; Maja Sofronievska Glavinov; Slavica Calcevska; Gordana Bozinovska Beaka

Ivica Stojanoski City General Hospital “8th of September “,Skopje, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Goce Delcev University in Stip, North Macedonia
Toni Krstev City General Hospital “8th of September “, Skopje, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Goce Delcev University in Stip, North Macedonia
Sotir Stavridis Clinical Hospital “Acibadem Sistina”, Department of Urology, Skopje, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Goce Delcev University in Stip, North Macedonia
Maja Sofronievska Glavinov PHI University Clinic for Surgical Diseases “St.Naum Ohridski”, Skopje, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Goce Delcev University in Stip, North Macedonia
Slavica Calcevska City General Hospital “8th of September “, Skopje, North Macedonia
Gordana Bozinovska Beaka City General Hospital “8th of September “, Skopje, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Goce Delcev University in Stip, North Macedonia

Abstract

Introduction: Given the high incidence and recurrence of nephrolithiasis, technological advances have been made to dramatically improve minimally invasive techniques for treatment of kidney stone, such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). SWL is the standard method in the treatment of kidney stones smaller than 10 mm while PCNL methods of choice in the treatment of kidney stones larger than 20 mm. But for the choice of method for the treatment of 10 to 20 mm, upper and middle calices stones still there are conflicting opinions. Objectives: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SWL and PCNL in the treatment of 10-20 mm kidney stonei in the middle and upper pole and to choose the optimal procedure. Material and methods: The clinical study was designed as a randomized prospective study and conducted in GH "8th of September" - Skopje in the period from December 2023 to Januar 2025. During the study for both methods were analysed success rate, rate of re-treatment, the need for additional procedures, the degree of complications and the duration of the intervention and the hospital stay. Results: The study included 81 patients randomized into two groups. The first group included 41 patients treated with SWL, and the second group included 40 patients treated with PCNL. SWL vs. PCNL success rate was 90% vs. 82.9% (p = 0.29); the rate of re-treatment of SWL was 39.02% versus 0% of PCNL. (p = 0.00001). The additional procedures were equally present in the two treatment groups 14.64% in SWL and 15% in PCNL (p = 0.96). PCNL was associated with a significantly longer duration of treatment versus SWL, 110.2 ± 17.7 minutes versus 47.1 ± 3.3 minutes respectively (p = 0.00000). Complications were less frequently detected in patients treated with SWL compared to patients treated with PCNL, 17.1% versus 32.5% respectively. (p = 0.11) The mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients treated with SWL compared to PCNL, 1.1 ± 0.4 versus 6.0 ± 1.7 days (p <0.0001). Conclusion: This study shows that PCNL and up to three SWL treatments are safe and comparatively effective in treating patients with stones in the upper and middle calices ranging 10–20 mm.

Key words: urolithiasis, nephrolithiasis, extracorporeal lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, kidney.

References

1.Desai M, Sun Y, Buchholz N, et al. Treatment selection for urolithiasis: percutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, and active monitoring. World J Urol. 2017;35(9):1395-1399. doi:10.1007/s00345-017-2030-8
2.Zhe M, Hang Z. Nephrolithiasis as a risk factor of chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis of cohort studies with 4,770,691 participants. Urolithiasis. 2017;45(5):441-448. doi:10.1007/s00240-016-0938-x
3.Skolarikos A, Neisius A, Petrik A, Somani B, Thomas K, Gambaro G, et al. EAU Guidelines on urolithiasis. EAU Guidelines. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2022.
4.de la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P, Keeley F, Matsuda T, Pearle M, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol. 2014;28(2):131-139. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0436
5.Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):475-482. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041
6.Abdel-Khalek M, Sheir KZ, Mokhtar AA, Eraky I, Kenawy M, Bazeed M. Prediction of success rate after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of renal stones: a multivariate analysis model. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2004;38(2):161-167.
7.Chung VY, Turney BW. The success of shock wave lithotripsy in treating moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones. Urolithiasis. 2016;44(5):441-444. doi:10.1007/s00240-015-0857-2
8.Philipraj J, Brahadeeswaran S, Vishnuvardhan RA. Prospective randomized trial comparing outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in renal calculi of size between 1-2 centimeters. World J Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2018;7:1087-1108.
9.Desai M, Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C, Kurien A, Sabnis R. Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int. 2011;108(6):896-900. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.09936.x
10.Turna B, Ekren F, Nazli O, Akbay K, Altay B, Ozyurt C, Cikili N. Comparative results of shockwave lithotripsy for renal calculi in upper, middle, and lower calices. J Endourol. 2007;21(9):951-956. doi:10.1089/end.2006.0275
11.Nielsen TK, Jensen JB. Efficacy of commercialised extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy service: a review of 589 renal stones. BMC Urol. 2017;17:59. doi:10.1186/s12894-017-0249-8
12.Neisius A, Wollner J, Thomas C, Roos FC, Brenner W, Hampel C, Preminger GM, Thuroff JW, Gillitzer R. Treatment efficacy and outcomes using a third generation shockwave lithotripter. BJU Int. 2013;112(7):972-981. doi:10.1111/bju.12159
13.Muniasamy S, Palaniyandi V, Krishnamoorthy S, Kumaresan N, Ramanan V. Comparative study of stone free rate, morbidity, and need for retreatment procedures between various surgical modalities for 10-20 mm upper urinary tract calculi. Int J Sci Stud. 2017;4(10):37-43.
14.Ozgor F, Kucuktopcu O, Simsek A, Sarilar O, Binbay M, Gurbuz G. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for isolated calyceal stones: how important is the stone location? Turk J Urol. 2015;41(4):171-176. doi:10.5152/tud.2015.06787
15.Saxby MF, Sorahan T, Slaney P, Coppinger SW. A case-control study of percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Br J Urol. 1997;79(3):317-323. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00362.x
16.Singh GP, Samal S. Comparison of success rate and complications of PCNL with ESWL in treatment of kidney stone size 1-2 cm. Ann Int Med Dent Res. 2020;6(4):SG43-SG46.
17.Resorlu B, Unsal A, Ziypak T, Diri A, Atis G, Guven S, Sancaktutar AA, Tepeler A, Bozkurt OF, Oztuna D. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones. World J Urol. 2013;31(6):1581-1586. doi:10.1007/s00345-012-0991-1
18.Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, DA Honey RJ, Pace KT. A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol. 2011.
19.Aboelkher KM, Abd-Elgawad OA, Abd-Elbaky TM, Elsherif EA. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for moderate sized kidney stones. Menoufia Med J. 2017;30:372-377.
20.Deem S, Defade B, Modak A, Emmett M, Martinez F, Davalos J. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for moderate sized kidney stones. Urology. 2011;78:739-743.
21.Rao PP, Desai RM, Sabnis RB, Patel SH, Desai MR. The relative cost-effectiveness of PCNL and ESWL for medium sized (<2 cm) renal calculi in a tertiary care urological referral centre. Indian J Urol. 2001;17:121-123.
22.Kurtulus FO, Fazlioglu A, Tandogdu Z, Aydin M, Karaca S, Cek M. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: primary patients versus patients with history of open renal surgery. J Endourol. 2008;22:2671-2676.
23.Bas O, Bakirtas H, Sener NC, Ozturk U, Tuygun C, Goktug HN, Imamoglu MA. Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(2):115-120. doi:10.1007/s00240-013-0615-2
24.Shaban A, Kodera A, Elghoneimy MN, Orban T, Mursi K, Hegazy A. Safety and efficacy of supracostal access in percutaneous renal surgery. J Endourol. 2008;22:29-34.
25.Akman T, Binbay M, Ugurlu M, Kaba M, Akcay M, Yazici O, Ozgor F, Muslumanoglu AY. Outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery compared with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients with moderate-size kidney stones: a matched-pair analysis. J Endourol. 2012;26(6):625-629. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0526
26.Carlsson P, Kinn AC, Tiselius HG, Ohlsen H, Rahmqvist M. Cost effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for medium sized kidney stones: a randomised clinical trial. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1992;26:257-263.