Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Flexible Ureteroscopy for Treatment of Urolithiasis in Horseshoe Kidney Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yi X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8572974 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeShock wave lithotripsy has been commonly used to treat children with renal and ureteral calculi but recently ureteroscopy has been used more frequently. We examined postoperative outcomes from these 2 modalities in children.Materials and methodsWe reviewed linked inpatient, ambulatory surgery and emergency department data from 2007 to 2010 for 5 states to identify pediatric admissions for renal/ureteral calculi treated with shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy. Unplanned readmissions, additional procedures and emergency room visits were extracted. Multivariate logistic regression using generalized estimating equations to adjust for hospital level clustering was performed.ResultsWe identified 2,281 admissions (1,087 for shock wave lithotripsy and 1,194 for ureteroscopy). Ages of patients undergoing ureteroscopy and those undergoing shock wave lithotripsy were similar (median 17.0 years for both cohorts, p = 0.001) but patients were more likely to be female (63.4% vs 54.7%, p <0.0001), to be privately insured (69.8% vs 62.2%, p <0.0005) and to have a ureteral stone (81.0% vs 34.8%, p <0.0001). Patients undergoing ureteroscopy demonstrated a lower rate of additional stone related procedures within 12 months (13.6% vs 18.8%, p <0.0007) but a higher rate of readmissions (10.8% vs 6.3%, p <0.0002) and emergency room visits (7.9% vs 4.9%, p <0.0036) within 30 days postoperatively. On multivariable analysis patients undergoing ureteroscopy were nearly twice as likely to visit an emergency room within 30 days of the procedure (OR 1.97, p <0.001) and to be readmitted to inpatient services (OR 1.71, p <0.01).ConclusionsUreteroscopy is now used more commonly than shock wave lithotripsy for initial pediatric stone intervention. Although repeat treatment rates did not differ between procedures, ureteroscopy patients were more likely to be seen at an emergency room or hospitalized within 30 days of the initial procedure.
| S-EPMC6103480 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy (f-URS) in treating urinary tract stones.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for literature comparing SWL with f-URS. The primary outcomes we focused on were stone-free rate (SFR) and complications; the secondary outcomes were operation time, hospital stay, retreatment rate, number of sessions, and auxiliary procedures rate. We used ReviewManager version 5.4.1 and STATA version 14.2 for meta-analysis.ResultsSeventeen studies with a total of 2,265 patients were included in the meta-analysis, including 1,038 patients in the SWL group and 1,227 patients in the f-URS group. The meta-analysis indicated that patients in the f-URS group had higher SFR than those in the SWL group [odds ratio (OR): 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-3.12, p = 0.002]. In addition, we found no significant difference in complications (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.85-1.37) between the two treatments. Also, we found that the retreatment rate and the auxiliary procedure rate in the f-URS group were significantly lower than those in the SWL group (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.24, p < 0.00001; OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.11-0.83, p = 0.02). Moreover, the number of sessions in the f-URS group was significantly lower than that in the SWL group [mean difference (MD): -1.96, 95% CI: -1.55 to -0.33, p = 0.003]. However, the operation time and hospital stay in the f-URS group were significantly longer than those in the SWL group (MD: 11.24, 95% CI: 3.51-18.56, p = 0.004; MD: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.85-1.42, p < 0.00001).ConclusionFor 1-2-cm urinary stones, f-URS can achieve a higher SFR than SWL while having a lower retreatment rate, number of sessions, and auxiliary procedure rate. For urinary stones <1 cm, there was no significant difference in SFR between SWL and f-URS groups. The SWL group has a shorter operative time and hospital stay than the f-URS group.
| S-EPMC9676362 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceShock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) account for more than 90% of procedural interventions for kidney stones, which affect 1 in 11 persons in the United States. Efficacy data for SWL are more than 20 years old. Advances in URS, along with emerging evidence of reduced efficacy of modern lithotripters, have created uncertainty regarding the comparative effectiveness of these 2 treatment options.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of SWL and URS to fragment or remove urinary stones in a large private payer cohort.Design, setting, and participantsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of privately insured beneficiaries who had an emergency department visit for a kidney stone and subsequently underwent SWL or URS. Using an instrumental variable approach to control for observed and unobserved differences between the 2 groups, we created a bivariate probit model to estimate the probability of repeat intervention following an initial procedure.Main outcomes and measuresA second procedure (SWL or URS) within 120 days of an initial intervention to fragment or remove or a kidney stone.ResultsFollowing an acute care visit for a kidney stone, 21 937 patients (45.8%) underwent SWL and 25 914 patients (54.2%) underwent URS to fragment or remove the stone. After the initial URS, 4852 patients (18.7%) underwent an additional fragmentation or removal procedure compared with 5186 patients (23.6%) after the initial SWL (P < .001). After adjusting for observed and unobserved variables, the estimated probabilities of repeat intervention were 11.0%(95%CI, 10.9-11.1) following SWL and 0.3%(95%CI, 0.325-0.329) following URS.Conclusions and relevanceAmong privately insured beneficiaries requiring procedural intervention to remove a symptomatic stone, repeat intervention is more likely following SWL. For the marginal patient (as opposed to the average patient), the probability of repeat intervention is substantially higher.
| S-EPMC9869873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExtracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is considered one of the best choices for the treatment of various kinds of urinary tract calculi, although it might cause acute kidney injury.ObjectiveTo measure the urinary long non-coding RNA-messenger RNA (LncRNA-mRNA) panel before and after ESWL to evaluate post-ESWL renal injury in a reliable and non-invasive method.Patients and methodsThe study included 60 patients with renal stones treated with ESWL and 30 healthy volunteers. Voided urine samples were obtained before, 2 h, and 1 day after ESWL. We measured the urinary level of LncRNA (SBF2-AS1, FENDRR-19) and mRNA (GBP1, NLRP3) by real-time qPCR and compared the results with serum creatinine and eGFR.ResultsLncRNA (SBF2-AS1, FENDRR-19) and mRNA (GBP1, NLRP3) levels were higher in patients with renal stones when compared with healthy volunteers. They showed a statistically significant increase in the level of LncRNA-mRNA panel in baseline and after ESWL treatment.ConclusionLncRNA (SBF2-AS1, FENDRR-19) and mRNA (GBP1, NLRP3) levels were significantly elevated following ESWL treatment, highlighting the usefulness of urinary biomarkers in identifying patients at higher risk of developing renal injury after ESWL treatment.
| S-EPMC9166822 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe reported success rates for treatments of kidney stones with either extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) are conflicting. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESWL and URS for previously untreated renal calculi.MethodsAll patients treated with ESWL or URS at our tertiary care centre between 2003 and 2015 were retrospectively identified. Patients with previously untreated kidney stones and a stone diameter of 5-20?mm were included. Stone-free, freedom from reintervention and complication rates were recorded. Independent predictors of stone-free and freedom from reintervention rates were identified by multivariable logistic regression and a propensity score-matched analysis was performed.ResultsA total of 1282 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 999 (78%) underwent ESWL and 283 (22%) had URS. During post-operative follow-up, only treatment modality and stone size could independently predict stone-free and freedom from reintervention rates. After propensity score matching, ESWL showed significantly lower stone-free rates [ESWL (71%) versus URS (84%)] and fewer patients with freedom from reintervention [ESWL (55%) versus URS (79%)] than URS. Complications were scarce for both treatments and included Clavien Grade 3a in 0.8% versus 0% and Grade 3b in 0.5% versus 0.4% of ESWL and URS treated patients, respectively.ConclusionsTreatment success was mainly dependent on stone size and treatment modality. URS might be the better treatment option for previously untreated kidney stones 5-20?mm, with similar morbidity but higher stone-free rates and fewer reinterventions than ESWL.
| S-EPMC6007408 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this study we sought to determine if among individuals with urolithiasis, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy are associated with a higher risk of incident arterial hypertension (HTN) and/or chronic kidney disease (CKD). This was measured in a population-based retrospective study of 11,570 participants with incident urolithiasis and 127,464 without urolithiasis in The Health Improvement Network. Patients with pre-existing HTN and CKD were excluded. The study included 1319 and 919 urolithiasis patients with at least one SWL or URS procedure, respectively. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio for incident CKD stage 3-5 and HTN in separate analyses. Over a median of 3.7 and 4.1 years, 1423 and 595 of urolithiasis participants developed HTN and CKD, respectively. Urolithiasis was associated with a significant hazard ratio each for HTN of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.35, 1.51) and for CKD of 1.82 (1.67, 1.98). SWL was associated with a significant increased risk of HTN 1.34 (1.15, 1.57), while ureteroscopy was not. When further stratified as SWL to the kidney or ureter, only SWL to the kidney was significantly and independently associated with HTN 1.40 (1.19, 1.66). Neither SWL nor ureteroscopy was associated with incident CKD. Since urolithiasis itself was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for HTN, an individual who undergoes SWL to the kidney can be expected to have a significantly increased hazard ratio for HTN of 1.96 (1.67, 2.29) compared with an individual without urolithiasis.
| S-EPMC4911906 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeShock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy are the most commonly performed surgeries for kidney and ureteral stones, but the comparative effectiveness of these interventions at the population level is unclear. We compared re-treatment for shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy.Materials and methodsA retrospective cohort study using all-payer claims data for all patients who underwent shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy from 1997 to 2016 at 74 hospitals in South Carolina was performed. The primary outcome measure was subsequent shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy within 6 months of initial surgery. Pseudorandomized trials of ureteroscopy vs shock wave lithotripsy were performed for each year, applying propensity scores to balance hospital and patient characteristics. Discrete time failure models were fit using propensity score weighted logistic regression.ResultsOverall 136,152 ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy surgeries were performed in 95,227 unique patients with re-treatment representing 9% of all surgeries. A total of 74,251 index surgeries were shock wave lithotripsy (59.9%) and 49,743 were ureteroscopy (40.1%). Shock wave lithotripsy was associated with a 20% increased odds of re-treatment (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.13-1.26). The probability of re-treatment was 7.5% for ureteroscopy and 10.4% for shock wave lithotripsy. Shock wave lithotripsy had the greatest risk of re-treatment at months 2 (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.64-2.10) and 3 (OR 1.76; 95% CI 1.50-2.06). Patients with initial shock wave lithotripsy were more likely to have shock wave lithotripsy for re-treatment (84.6%) than those patients who had initial ureteroscopy were to have ureteroscopy (29.3%).ConclusionsCompared to ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy was associated with increased odds of re-treatment. These results have implications for shared decision making and value based surgical treatment of nephrolithiasis.
| S-EPMC7211122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a non-invasive procedure that allows urinary stones to be fragmented using acoustic shock waves. The impact of the shock waves causes transient stinging pain at the entry site as well as deep visceral discomfort, requiring analgesia during the procedure. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of Entonox and pethidine for pain relief during outpatient ESWL. We randomized 150 outpatients undergoing elective ESWL into three groups of 50 patients, each group receiving inhalational Entonox, intravenous pethidine, or inhalational compressed air during ESWL. Quantitative evaluation of pain was performed according to a visual analogue scale (VAS), before and after the intervention. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired t tests were used to compare VAS scores in the three groups, before and after the intervention. Entonox and pethidine decreased the pain score significantly, while compressed air did not. There was no significant difference between pain relief by Entonox and pethidine. This study demonstrates for the first time that inhalational Entonox is an effective analgesic regimen for ESWL. Entonox can be regarded as an appropriate alternative to analgesics like opioids in relieving pain during ESWL.
| S-EPMC2082064 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPrimary flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) are treatment options in patients with renal calculi of 5-15 mm.ObjectiveTo compare effectiveness, complication rates, and pain scores between primary URS and SWL.Design setting and participantsBetween 2011 and 2016, patients with renal calculi between 5 and 15 mm were randomized to undergo either primary URS or SWL.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisStone-free rate and size of residual fragments assessed by computed tomography after 3 mo, complications, and pain scores were evaluated.Results and limitationsThe study was prematurely closed after randomizing 44 patients due to poor accrual. The 3-mo stone-free rate and mean residual stone size were, respectively, 61% and 1.8 mm after URS and 48% and 2.4 mm after SWL. Early post-treatment pain scores were significantly higher after URS than after SWL on day 1 (3.3 vs 1.6, p = 0.02) and day 7 (5.2 vs 3.4, p = 0.04), but were no longer detectable after 3 wk and 3 mo, respectively. One Clavien-Dindo grade II complication was observed after URS (5%) and SWL (4%), while one (4%) grade IIIb complication was observed after SWL.ConclusionsURS appears to be associated with higher early post-treatment discomfort, which could be associated with routine postoperative stenting. Owing to premature closure of this trial, the power was insufficient to formally compare URS and SWL; however, the present data might be informative to counsel patients about treatment outcomes and allow future meta-analyses.Patient summaryThis study was ended prematurely, but it contributes data about efficacy and side effects of different treatment options in patients with renal calculi.
| S-EPMC8317856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficiency and safety of emergency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (eESWL) and delayed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (dESWL) in the treatment of ureteral stones.MethodsCochrane Library, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science were searched from January 1, 1992 to September 30, 2022, and all comparative studies involving eESWL and dESWL for ureteral calculi were included. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Funnel plot was used to evaluated publication bias.ResultsA total of 9 articles involving 976 patients diagnosed with ureteral stones were included. The results showed that the stone-free rate (SFR) after four weeks was significantly higher in the eESWL group than in the dESWL group [relative risk (RR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-1.32, P < 0.01]. In subgroup analysis of different stone locations, proximal ureteral calculi [RR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.14-1.38, P < 0.01] and mid-to-distal ureteral calculi [RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.03-1.34, P < 0.05] all showed a higher SFR in the eESWL group. eESWL significantly shortened the stone-free time(SFT) [mean difference (MD) = -5.75, 95% CI: -9.33 to -2.17, P < 0.01]. In addition, eESWL significantly reduced auxiliary procedures [RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40-0.70, P < 0.01]. No significant difference in complications was found between the two groups [RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.69-1.16, P > 0.05].ConclusioneESWL can significantly improve SFR, shorten SFT, and reduce auxiliary procedures.
| S-EPMC10074806 | biostudies-literature