| |
| | | Year : 2010 | Volume : 21 | Issue : 4 | Page : 660-665 | | | Factors affecting urinary calculi treatment by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy | | | Emad Tarawneh, Zeyad Awad, Audy Hani, Azmi Amin Haroun, Azmi Hadidy, Waleed Mahafza, Osama Samarah
Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Urological Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, Amman, Jordan
Click here for correspondence address and email | Date of Web Publication | 26-Jun-2010 | | |      | |  Abstract | | | Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is still the treatment of choice for most renal and upper ureteric stones; however the outcome depends on multiple factors. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of stone density, as measured by Hounsfield Units (H.U) by non-contrast Computerized Tomography (CT), stone size and stone location on ESWL treatment outcome of urinary calculi in Jordanian patients. 65 patients underwent clinical, biochemical and radiological assessments followed by ESWL treatment. Statistical analyses including chi-square, analysis of variance (ANOVA), correlation, regression were performed for statistical significance between ESWL treatment, stone fragmentation and stone density, size and location in the renal pelvis. ESWL success rate was high (94%) for low density stones (< 500 Hounsfield units). In general CT densities of 750 Hounsfield units or less were almost always successfully treated by ESWL. An inverse association between ESWL treatment outcome and stone size was also documented. CT stone density and stone size combined account for nearly 73% of the variation in the number of shock waves required to attain fragmentation. Stones located in lower calyceal area had less success rates. In conclusion, stones with higher density, large size and lower location may better be managed by percutaneous nephrolithotomy. How to cite this article:
Tarawneh E, Awad Z, Hani A, Haroun AA, Hadidy A, Mahafza W, Samarah O. Factors affecting urinary calculi treatment by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2010;21:660-5 |
How to cite this URL:
Tarawneh E, Awad Z, Hani A, Haroun AA, Hadidy A, Mahafza W, Samarah O. Factors affecting urinary calculi treatment by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl [serial online] 2010 [cited 2014 Mar 2];21:660-5. Available from: http://www.sjkdt.org/text.asp?2010/21/4/660/64636 |
| Introduction | |  |
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is still the treatment of choice for most renal and upper ureteric stones especially those with size range of 10-20 mms. [1] The success rate of this treatment modality is in the range of 60-90% in various series. [1],[2],[3] However, the outcome of ESWL treatment depends on many factors including, stone size, site, composition and the presence of obstruction or infection. [4],[5]
Different techniques have been used to determine the chemical composition of urinary calculi in vivo since it has emerged as the main factor determining the outcome of ESWL. [6],[7],[8] Nowadays, Non-Contrasted Computerized Tomography (NCCT) has become the diagnostic modality of choice to evaluate renal colic and to distinguish radiolucent urinary stones from tumors or blood clots. [9],[10],[11] The ability of NCCT to detect density differences as low as 0.5% has been used to determine the composition and fragility of urinary stones, and hence the outcome of ESWL. [12],[13] In previous studies the NCCT attenuation value of urinary calculi has been investigated as a method to predict the outcome of ESWL for two main purposes: avoiding the extra medical costs associated with nonproductive ESWL sessions, and seeking alternative patient management strategies. [14]
The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of stone density as measured by H.U. on NCCT, stone size, and stone location on ESWL outcome and stone fragmentation of urinary calculi in Jordanian patients.
| Patients and Methods | | |
73 patients were evaluated, however eight patients were excluded due to elevated creatinine levels (more than 2 mg/dL), single kidney, bleeding diathesis or obstructed kidney. Thus, the analyses, results and conclusions of this study were based on 65 patients. These 65 patients were prospectively followed at the Jordan University Hospital. All 65 patients had initially undergone clinical, biochemical and radiological assessments before ESWL treatment sessions. Of the 65 patients, 41 were males (63%) mean age of 44 ± 17 years (17-76).
Urinary stone sizes ranged between 5-30 mms of which six were located in the upper calyx, ten in the mid calyx, 17 in the lower calyx, 26 in the renal pelvis and six in the ureter. Thirteen patients had stone sizes less than or equal 10 mms, thirty-four had stone sizes of 11-20 mm, while the rest (18 patients) had stone sizes of 21-30 mms. It should be noted that the study had initially included, rather than 73.
The maximal linear diameter of the stone was measured by NCCT scan. NCCT scan using contiguous three-millimeter section slices through the stone was performed and viewed on soft tissue setting (window width 350, window level l50 Hounsfield Units). Siemens Somatom Plus 4 scanner, at 120 kV and 206 mA, was used at a scan rate of one second per image. A pixel map of the largest region of interest within the stone was performed and consisted of 100 attenuation values in a 10 Χ 10 matrix; with each value on the pixel map representing the attenuation value for four pixels. The lowest, highest and most common attenuation values were recorded and the mean stone attenuation value was then calculated.
All ESWLs were undertaken by a Siemens Electromagnetic Lithostar Multiline Lithotripter with fragmentation performed under fluoroscopic or ultrasonographic guidance. A maximum of 2800 shock waves were delivered in each treatment session with maximum energy level of four. ESWL treatment was terminated if satisfactory fragmentation was noted earlier before delivering the maximum number of shocks (i.e., 2800). Another ESWL session was undertaken three weeks later if follow up plain x-ray showed significant residual fragments (more or equal 5 mm in diameter). A plain x-ray was performed six weeks after treatment completion for final assessment of outcome. In 19 patients with stones larger than 20 mms, or lower calyx stones larger than 15 mm, J.J. Stent was inserted prior to ESWL. If a stone was not fragmented at all, or if there were residual fragments 5 mms or larger after four sessions, this was considered as failure and another treatment option was sought. Thus the 65 patients were divided into two groups according to the outcomes of ESWLs. The "success group" comprised patients who had successful stone fragmentation and subsequent stone clearance. The "failure group" comprised patients who failed to clear the stone because fragmentation either did not occur at all or did occur, but, with significant residual fragments (5 mms or larger in size).
Statistical analyses including chi-square, analysis of variance (ANOVA), correlation, regression and 95% confidence intervals were performed on the data to test the statistical significance of the various relationships between ESWL outcome and stone fragmentation on one side, stone density, size and location on the other side.
| Results | | |
The characteristics of both groups are shown in [Table 1]. The mean stone diameter of the failure group was marginally larger though statistically insignificant (P= 0.676). The mean stone density, of the failure group was nearly 60% larger than that of the success group; 1077 Hounsfield units compared to 672 (P = 0.000). On average, the failure group had received 2.6 ESWL treatment sessions compared to only 1.4 sessions in the success group; a difference of nearly 86%. On average, nearly 7200 shock waves were delivered to the failure group compared to only nearly 4000 in the success group (both P-values = 0.000).
Stone Density
The patients were further analyzed by dividing them into three groups according to stone density. The "low density group" comprised all patients with stone densities of less than 500 Hounsfield units, the "medium density group" comprised all patients with stone densities of 500-1000, while, the "high density group" comprised all patients with stone densities of more than 1000. ESWL treatment outcomes, according to stone density levels are shown in [Table 2] showing high success rate in low density group (94% ), A chi-square test analysis revealed statistically significant association between ESWL treatment outcome and stone density (chi-square = 12.4, df = 2, P = 0.002).
Stone Size
The patients were also analyzed by dividing hem into three groups according to stone diameter. The "low diameter group": stone diameters of 10 mms or less, the "medium diameter group": 11-20 mms, while, the "high diameter group": 21-30 mms. The ESWL treatment outcomes, in terms of success or failure of stone clearance, according to these three stone diameter levels are shown in [Table 3]. Higher success rates were achieved with lower diameter, 92%, 74% and only 50% for lower, medium and higher groups respectively (chisquare = 6.8, df = 2, P = 0.033). A positive correlation between the stone diameter in millimeters and the number of shock waves delivered was noted r=0.32,(P = 0.009).
Stone Site
Patients were stratified into two groups according to stone site; "lower calyceal group" included all patients with lower calyceal stones, and "other group" included the rest of patients. The ESWL treatment outcomes, in terms of success or failure of stone clearance, according to these two stone sites ("lower calyceal" or "other") are shown in [Table 4]. The success of ESWL treatment was only 47% in the lower calyceal stone site group compared to 79% in the case of other stone sites (chi-square = 6.3, df = 1, P-value = 0.012).
Regression analysis was also performed keeping number of shock waves delivered as dependent variable, while the independent variables were stone density in Hounsfield units and stone diameter in millimeters. Equations 1 and 2 were obtained with only stone density as the independent variable, and both stone density and stone size as independent variables respectively.
Y = 432 + 5.6 X1 (1)
Y = 227 + 5.5 X1 + 17.8 X2 (2)
Where,
- Y: Number of shockwaves required to attain stone fragmentation,
- X 1 : Stone density in Hounsfield units, and
- X 2 : Stone diameter in millimeters.
The adjusted R-squares of models 1 and 2 were 0.699 and 0.727, respectively P < 0.001. The adjusted R-squares indicate that stone density alone accounts for nearly 70% of the variation in the number of shock waves required to attain fragmentation, while both, stone density and stone size combined, account for nearly 73% of the variation.
Our data also indicate that stone density in the success group is nearly 750 Houndfield units; indicating successful treatment by ESWL below this level and failure above 950 Houndfield units, [Table 5]. The successful outcome was also in general with stone size of nearly 16 mms or less, in 1.7 numbers of sessions and up to 6300 shock waves, [Table 5].
| Discussion | | |
ESWL is still considered the best treatment for calculi less than 20 mms, but the outcome of this therapy depends on different factors including stone composition, stone location, pelvicalyceal anatomy and stone size. [4] Stone composition seems to play the most important role in the outcome of treatment, however, still it can not be known accurately before stone retrieval and analysis. The crystals excreted in urine after ESWL can give an idea about stone composition. Urinalysis with scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy for determining stone composition before ESWL still have some limitations. [15],[16],[17]
Plain x-ray has been used to predict the outcome of ESWL treatment by comparing stone density with bone density. However, this method has some disadvantages since the stone diameter and appearance might not be measured accurately, especially in the presence of bowel gas interference or neighboring bony structures and the density measurement is subjective. [1] We used plain CT scan which is a non invasive technique and provides greater density discrimination than plain x-ray. CT can distinguish density differences as low as 0.5% compared to only 5% discrimination using plain x-ray. [1],[9]
Joseph et al [1] suggested that stones with CT attenuation value of greater than 950 Hounsfield units and 7500 shockwaves failed to achieve fragmentation. Gupta et al [21] showed that the worst outcome of ESWL was in patients with calculus densities of more than 750 Hounsfield units and diameters of more than 1.1 cms, and their clearance rate was only 60%. In our study, the success of ESWL treatment is almost always guaranteed when the CT attenuation value is less than 750 Hounsfield units, while, at the same time, treatment failure is almost certain when the CT attenuation value exceeds 950. Stone densities in the range of 750-950 may, or may not, respond successfully to ESWL treatment. Similar to Gupta et al, this study found that stone densities of more than 750 Hounsfield units may fail to respond successfully to ESWL treatment. However, contrary to Gupta et al, this study revealed that stone diameters of up to 20 mms may still (depending on stone density) respond successfully to ESWL treatment. [21] Similar to Joseph et al, the results of this study clearly reveals that stones with densities exceeding 950 Hounsfield units are difficult to fragment. However, contrary to Joseph et al, up to 6300 shock waves may be attempted before seeking other type treatment (i. e., percutaneous nephrolithotomy). Even though the results of this study have identified both stone density and size as significant contributors to ESWL treatment success rate, it also revealed that stone density is the determinant factor of treatment success for stone sizes of 20 mms or smaller.
To date, few clinical studies have compared the stone density with the outcome of ESWL in vivo. In a study of 30 patients, Joseph et al [1] found that patients with calculi of less than 500 Hounsfield units had complete clearance and required a median of 2500 shockwaves, patients with calculi of 500-1000 Hounsfield units had a clearance rate of 86% and required a median of 3390 shockwaves, and patients with calculi of more than 1000 Hounfield units had a clearance rate of 55% only and required a median of 7300 shockwaves. Study by Joseph et al based on 65 patients, showed that stones with densities less than 500 Hounsfield units have 94% clearance rate and required a median of 2800 shockwaves, patients with stone densities of 500-1000 Hounsfield units have 76% clearance rate and required a median of 3700 shockwaves, and patients with stone densities more than 1000 Hounsfield units have 42% clearance rate and required a median of 7800 shockwaves.
Pareek et al [23] correlated calculus density with stone clearance in their study of 100 patients. They concluded that patients with residual calculi had a mean calculus density of more than 900 Hounsfield units. However, Pareek et al did not correlate the calculus density with fragmentation. The results of this study concurs with Pareek et al's results in that stone clearance is unlikely when stone density exceeds 950 Hounsfield units.
The results of this study supports those of Joseph et al [1] in that stone density has an inverse relation with the ESWL success rate, and CT stone density has a positive correlation with the number of shockwaves needed for fragmentation. Also, the results of this study concurs with the results of previous studies [1],[19],[20],[21],[22] in that stone location has a significant effect on fragmentation success and clearance with lower calyceal stones have less success rates compared to other locations.
In conclusion, ESWL treatment outcome is strongly, but inversely, dependent on stone density. Stones with CT densities of 750 Hounsfield units or less undergo successful treatment requiring lesser number of shock waves and sessions. Large stones more than 1.7 cm and lower calyceal location are resistant to ESWL.
| References | | |
| 1. | Joseph P, Mandal AK, Sharma SK. CT attenuation value of renal calculus: can it predict successful fragmentation of the calculus by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? A preliminary study. J Urol 2002;167:1968.  [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] | | 2. | Lingeman JE, Newman D, Mertz JH, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: the Methodist Indiana experience. J Urol 1996; 135:1134. | | 3. | Cass AS. Comparison of first generation (Dornier HM3) and second generation (Medstone STS) lithotriptors: treatment results with 13,864 renal and ureteric calculi. J Urol 1995;153:588. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] | | 4. | Bon D, Dore B, Irani J, et al. Radiographic prognostic criteria for extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. Urology 1996;48:556. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] | | 5. | Martin TV, Sosa RE. Shockwave lithotripsy. In Walsh PC, Retick AB, Vaughan ED Jr, Wein AJ, eds, Campbeils urology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Inc, 1998:2735-52. | | 6. | Otnes B. Crystalline composition of urinary stones in recurrent stone formers. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1983;17:179-84. [PUBMED] | | 7. | Dretler SP, Polykoff G. Calcium oxalate stone morphology: fine tuning our therapeutic distinctions. J Urol 1996;155:828-33. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] | | 8. | Herremans D. Vandeursen H, Pittomvills G, et al. In vitro analysis of urinary calculi: type differentiation using computed tomography and bone densitometry. Br J Urol 1993;72:544-8. | | 9. | Federle MP, McAninch JW, Kaiser JA, Goodman PC, Roberts J, Mall JC. CT of urinary calculi. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1981;136:255-8. | | 10. | Parienty RA, Ducellier R, Pradel J, Lubrano JM, Coquille F, Richard F. Diagnostic value of CT numbers in pelvicalyceal filling defects. Radiology 1982;145:743-7. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] | | 11. | Fielding JR, Steele G, Fox A, Heller H, Loughlin KR, Spiral computerized tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain: a replacement for excretory urography. J Urol 1997;157:2071-3. | | 12. | Dretler SP. Stone fragility- a new therapeutic distinction. J Urol 1988;139:1124-7. [PUBMED] | | 13. | Mostafavi MR, Ernst RD, Saltzman B. Accurate determination of chemical composition of urinary calculi by spiral CT. J Urol 1998;159:673. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] | | 14. | Lingeman JE, Woods JR, Toth PD. Blood pressure changes following Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and other forms of treatment for nephrolithiasis. JAMA 1990;263:1789. [PUBMED] | | 15. | Khan SR, Hackett RL, Finlayson B. Morphology of urinary stone particles resulting from ESWL treatment. J Urol 1986;136:1367. [PUBMED] | | 16. | Bowsher WG, Crocker P, Ramsay JW, Whitfield HN. Single urine sample diagnosis, A new concept in stone analysis. Br J Urol 1990;65: 236. [PUBMED] | | 17. | Cohen NP, Parkhouse H, Scott ML, Bowsfer WG, Crocker P, Whitfield HN. Prediction of response to lithotripsy: the use of scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy. Br J Urol 1992;70:469. | | 18. | Hillman BJ, Drach GW, Tracey P, Gaines JA. CT analysis of renal calculi. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;142:549. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] | | 19. | Sabnis RB, Naik K, Patel SH, Desai MR, Bapat SD. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower calyceal stones: can clearance be predicted? Br J Urol 1997;80:853. [PUBMED] | | 20. | Madbouly K, Sheir KZ, Elsobsky E. Impact of lower pole renal anatomy on stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy: Fact or Fiction? J Urol 2001;165:1415. | | 21. | Gupta NP, Ansari MS, Kesarvani P. Role of computed tomography with no contrast medium enhancement in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. Br J Urol 2005;95:1285-8. | | 22. | Abdul-Khalek M, Sheir KZ, Mokhtar AA. Prediction of Success rate after ESWL of renal stones. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2004;38:161-7. | | 23. | Pareek G, Aremenakas NA, Fracchia JA. Hounsfield units on CT. predict stone-free rates after ESWL. J Urol 2003;169:1679-81. |
Correspondence Address:
Emad Tarawneh
Jordan University, P.O. Box 13200, Amman 11942
Jordan
PMID: 20587869
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5] | |
| This article has been cited by | | 1 | Obesity might not be a disadvantage for SWL treatment in children with renal stone | | | Akca, O. and Horuz, R. and Boz, M.Y. and Kafkasli, A. and Gokhan, O. and Goktas, C. and Sarica, K. | | International Urology and Nephrology. 2013; 45(1): 11-16 | | [Pubmed] | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 2587 | | | Printed | 105 | | | Emailed | 0 | | | PDF Downloaded | 510 | | | Comments | [Add] | | | Cited by others | 1 | | | | 
|
