To compare efficacy and safety between early extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (eESWL) and deferred ESWL (dESWL) in colic patients with ureteral stones and to investigate whether eESWL can play a critical role in improving treatment outcomes.
Materials and Methods
A total of 279 patients who underwent ESWL for single radio-opaque ureteral stones of 5 to 20 mm in size were included in this retrospective study. The patients were categorized into two groups according to the time between the onset of colic and ESWL: eESWL (<48 hours, n=153) and dESWL (≥48 hours, n=126). Success was defined as stone-free status as shown on a plain radiograph within 1 month of the first session.
For all patients, the success rate in the eESWL group was significantly higher than that in the dESWL group. The eESWL group required significantly fewer ESWL sessions and less time to achieve stone-free status than did the dESWL group. For 241 patients with stones <10 mm, all treatment outcomes in the former group were superior to those in the latter group, but not for 38 patients with stones sized 10 to 20 mm. The superiority of eESWL over dESWL in the treatment outcomes was more pronounced for proximal ureteral stones than for mid-to-distal ureteral stones. Post-ESWL complication rates were comparable between the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, smaller stone size and a time to ESWL of <48 hours were independent predictors of success.
Our data suggest that eESWL in colic patients with ureteral stones is an effective and safe treatment with accelerated stone clearance.
Colic; Lithotripsy; Ureteral calculi
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a first-line treatment for pediatric urinary stone disease. We aimed to determine the factors affecting the outcome of ESWL for unilateral urinary stones in children.
Materials and Methods
A total of 81 pediatric patients aged 0 to 16 years with urinary stones treated by ESWL from January 1995 through May 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were required to have unilateral urinary stone disease. Children who underwent other surgical procedures before ESWL were excluded. Outcomes evaluated after ESWL were the stone-free rate at 3 months after ESWL, success within a single session, and success within three sessions. Factors affecting the success within three sessions were also analyzed.
The final analysis was for 42 boys and 22 girls (mean age, 9.2±5.2 years). Of these 64 patients, 58 (90.6%) were treated by ESWL without other surgical procedures and 54 (84.4%) were successfully treated within three ESWL sessions. In the multivariate analysis, multiplicity (odds ratio [OR], 0.080; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.012 to 0.534; p=0.009) and large stone size (>10 mm; OR, 0.112; 95% CI, 0.018 to 0.707; p=0.020) were significant factors that decreased the success rate within three ESWL sessions.
Most of the pediatric urinary stone patients in our study (90.6%) were successfully treated by ESWL alone without additional procedures. If a child has a large urinary stone (>10 mm) or multiplicity, clinicians should consider that several ESWL sessions might be needed for successful stone fragmentation.
Lithotripsy; Pediatrics; Treatment outcome; Urinary calculi
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the treatment of upper urinary tract stone disease is held in high regard by the public and the profession. Although the efficacy is good (77.4% to 100%) for the treatment of 1- to 2-cm stones in select patients, ESWL may require the assistance of adjuvant procedures in as many as 26% of patients and may need repeating in as many as 32% of patients. These represent more difficult situations in which larger, more numerous, or harder stones may be present and in which ureteral stones are manipulated before treatment. The predominant adverse effect of ESWL treatment is the microvascular disruption of the tissues through which the shock waves pass. In addition, the procedure is painful, with many patients requiring narcotic analgesia. Long-term complications such as the new onset of hypertension have occurred in as many as 8% of treated patients, but much speculation about the long-term effects remains.
The management of ureteral stones in children is becoming more similar to that in adults. A number of factors must be taken into account when selecting one's choice of therapy for ureteral stone in children such as the size of the stone, its location, its composition, and urinary tract anatomy. Endoscopic lithotripsy in children has gradually become a major technique for the treatment of ureteral stones. The stone-free rate following urteroscopic lithotripsy for ureteral stones has been reported in as high as 98.5-100%. The safety and efficacy of Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy make it the intracorporeal lithotriptor of choice. Given its minimally invasive features, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has become a primary mode of treatment for the pediatric patients with reno-ureteral stones. Stone-free rates have been reported from 59% to 91% although some patients will require more than one treatment session for stone clearance. It appears that the first-line of therapy in the child with distal and mid-ureteral stones should be ureteroscopic lithotripsy. While ESWL is still widely considered the first-line therapy for proximal ureteral calculi, there is an increasing body of evidence that shows that endoscopic or ESWL are equally safe and efficacious in those clinical scenarios. Familiarity with the full spectrum of endourological techniques facilitates a minimally invasive approach to pediatric ureteral stones.
ESWL; pediatric urolithiasis; ureteroscopy
Background. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has progressively acquired popularity as being the gold standard treatment for upper urinary tract lithiasis in infants since 1980. Our aim was to evaluate the outcome of ESWL for kidney stones and the use of double-J stent in infants. Material and Methods. A prospective clinical trial study performed on 50 infants with renal calculi at pelvic admitted in the Urology ward of Shafa Hospital, Sari, Iran, between 2001 and 2010. Main outcome measure of our study was clearing stones after one or more consecutive sessions of ESWL. Results. The study included 50 patients with renal calculi at pelvic. Among them, there were 35 (70%) boys and 15 (30%) girls with the age ranging from 1 to 13 months (mean of 7 month ± 3 days). All of them were treated by standard ESWL using Simons Lithostor plus machine. The stone sizes ranged from 6 mm to 22 mm. Double-J stents were placed in 11 infants (22%) with stones larger than 13 mm. Most of the patients required only one ESWL session. Conclusion. Since there were no complications following ESWL treatment, we can conclude that, in short term, ESWL is an effective and safe treatment modality for renal lithiasis in infants. In addition, we recommend double-J stent in infants with stones larger than 13 mm.
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is currently a first-line procedure of most upper urinary tract stones <2 cm of size because of established success rates, its minimal invasiveness and long-term safety with minimal complications. Given that alternative surgical and endourological options exist for the management of stone disease and that ESWL failure often results in the need for repeat ESWL or secondary procedures, it is highly desirable to identify variables predicting successful outcomes of ESWL in the pediatric population. Despite numerous reports and growing experience, few prospective studies and guidelines for pediatric ESWL have been completed. Variation in the methods by which study parameters are measured and reported can make it difficult to compare individual studies or make definitive recommendations. There is ongoing work and a need for continuing improvement of imaging protocols in children with renal colic, with a current focus on minimizing exposure to ionizing radiation, perhaps utilizing advancements in ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. This report provides a review of the current literature evaluating the patient attributes and stone factors that may be predictive of successful ESWL outcomes along with reviewing the role of pre-operative imaging and considerations for patient safety.
Attenuation value; pediatric kidney stone; safety; skin to stone distance; shockwave lithotripsy
To determine whether the distance from skin to stone, as measured by computed tomography (CT) scans, could affect the stone-free rate achieved via extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in renal stone patients.
Materials and Methods
We retrospectively reviewed the records 573 patients who had undergone ESWL at our institution between January 2006 and January 2010 for urinary stones sized from about 5 mm to 20 mm and who had no evidence of stone movement. We excluded patients with ureteral catheters and percutaneous nephrostomy patients; ultimately, only 43 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We classified the success group as those patients whose stones had disappeared on a CT scan or simple X-ray within 6 weeks after ESWL and the failure group as those patients in whom residual stone fragments remained on a CT scan or simple X-ray after 6 weeks. We analyzed the differences between the two groups in age, sex, size of stone, skin-to-stone distance (SSD), stone location, density (Hounsfield unit: HU), voltage (kV), and the number of shocks delivered.
The success group included 33 patients and the failure group included 10. In the univariate and multivariate analysis, age, sex, size of stone, stone location, HU, kV and the number of shocks delivered did not differ significantly between the two groups. Only SSD was a factor influencing success: the success group clearly had a shorter SSD (78.25±12.15 mm) than did the failure group (92.03±14.51 mm). The results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed SSD to be the only significant independent predictor of the ESWL stone-free rate.
SSD can be readily measured by CT scan; the ESWL stone-free rate was inversely proportional to SSD in renal stone patients. SSD may therefore be a useful clinical predictive factor of the success of ESWL on renal stones.
ESWL; Lithotripsy; Tomography; spiral computed
OBJECTIVES: To determine the number of people who underwent treatment of urinary stones in Quebec before and after the introduction of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and to determine how the introduction of ESWL influenced resource utilization. DESIGN: Before-after study; data were obtained from administrative databases and hospital-based cost estimates. SETTING: The 68 acute care hospitals in Quebec in which treatment of urinary stones is undertaken. PATIENTS: Quebec residents admitted to hospital for treatment of urinary stones between the fiscal years 1984 and 1992. OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of people treated for urinary stones per year, total number of procedures per year (including open surgery, percutaneous procedures, retrograde procedures and ESWL), and annual resources (including number of hospital bed-days and direct costs) for treatment of urinary stones used overall and in hospitals with and without ESWL services. RESULTS: Over the study period the number of people treated for urinary stones increased by 59%. As well, the combined frequency of ESWL and surgery (the two main treatment methods) increased by 107%. These increases were largely due to rates of treatment that grew by 52% among women and by 34% among men. The total number of hospital bed-days decreased by 28%, which reflected shorter hospital stays for ESWL. However, despite this decrease, the total direct annual costs were 7% higher in 1992 than in 1984 because of the increased numbers of people treated and procedures performed. In the three hospitals that offered ESWL the number of hospital bed-days and the direct costs of treating urinary stones increased by 49% and $2.5 million respectively. In the 65 other hospitals these figures decreased by 41% and about $2.9 million respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Because of increased intervention rates the total cost of treating urinary stones has risen since the introduction of ESWL. The introduction of ESWL has also been associated with a shift in the use of resources for treating urinary stones to hospitals with a lithotriptor. The reasons for the increased intervention rates are unknown. However, given the possibility of negative health effects and the increased costs, studies to determine whether the increased rates improve health outcomes are warranted.
This study aimed to elucidate whether stone removal by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is associated with delayed chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression.
Materials and Methods
We conducted a retrospective analysis of 131 nephrolithiasis patients with stage 3 and 4 CKD. We collected baseline clinical and laboratory data, kidney stone characteristics, and history of receiving ESWL. We classified study patients into two groups according to whether they underwent ESWL or not (Non-ESWL group vs. ESWL group). We initially compared annual estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) changes of Non-ESWL group with those of ESWL group before undergoing ESWL. In the next step, we sought to compare annual eGFR changes in the same patients before and after ESWL. Finally, we compared annual eGFR changes between success and failure groups among patients undergoing ESWL.
The mean age of the patients was 62 years and 72.5% were male. The mean observation period was 3.2 years. Non-ESWL group and ESWL group before undergoing ESWL showed similar annual eGFR changes (-1.75±6.5 vs. -1.63±7.2 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, p=0.425). However, eGFR declined slower after undergoing ESWL than before ESWL (annual eGFR changes, -0.29±6.1 vs. -1.63±7.2 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, p<0.05). In addition, among patients in ESWL group, eGFR declined faster in the failure group than in the success group (annual eGFR change, -1.01±4.7 vs. -0.05±5.2 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, p<0.05).
Our results suggest that stone removal by ESWL is associated with delayed deterioration of renal function in CKD patients with nephrolithiasis.
Nephrolithiasis; chronic kidney disease; extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL); glomerular filtration rate (GFR)
INTRODUCTION: Patients' experience and expectations are paramount in the current era of clinical governance. However, there is lack of published information on patients' expectations from extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment for renal stone disease. We conducted a survey to quantify what aspects of ESWL are important purely from the patients' prospective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postal questionnaires were sent out to all patients who attended our unit for ESWL treatment for renal stone disease. The questionnaire referred to 15 aspects of ESWL treatment. Patients were asked to rate each aspect based on a numerical scale from 1 to 10 (1--least important; 10--most important). RESULTS: We posted 340 questionnaires and received 208 valid replies (61%). Stone clearance was statistically the most important aspect of treatment. Staff attitude and explanation of the procedure and outcomes were rated highly. To our surprise, pain control was rated only 8th. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' priorities may be different to ours. Surveys like this allow ones to put the appropriate 'weight' on the results of patient satisfaction surveys in order to allocate resources and improve service appropriately.
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) has shown successful outcomes for ureteral stones. We investigated predictive factors for failure of ESWL for treating ureteral stones.
Materials and Methods
A total of 153 patients who underwent ESWL between July 2006 and July 2009 for ureteral stones diagnosed by non-enhanced spiral computed tomography were divided into two groups: (group A, stone size ≤10 mm; and group B, stone size >10 mm). The failure was defined as remnant stones >4 mm. We assessed age, sex, body mass index, stone size, laterality, location, skin-to-stone distance (SSD), Hounsfield unit, and the presence of secondary signs (hydronephrosis, renal enlargement, perinephric fat stranding, and tissue rim sign). We analyzed predictive factors by using logistic regression in each group.
The success rates were 90.2% and 68.6% in group A and B, respectively. In the univariate analysis of each group, stone size, SSD, and all secondary signs showed statistically significant differences in terms of the outcome of ESWL (p<0.05). In the multivariate logistic regression, stone size (odds ratio [OR], 50.005; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.207 to 402.852) was an independent predictive factor in group A. The presence of perinephric fat standing (OR, 77.634; 95% CI, 1.349 to 446.558) and stone size (OR, 19.718; 95% CI, 1.600 to 243.005) were independent predictive factors in group B.
Stone size is an independent predictive factor influencing failure of ESWL for treating ureteral stones. In larger ureteral stones (>10 mm), the presence of perinephric fat stranding is also an independent predictive factor.
Lithotripsy; Treatment outcome; Ureteral calculi
Fifty patients have been treated for upper tract urinary calculi by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) at the Devonshire Hospital lithotripter centre since November 1984. The average stay for an inpatient was 3 X 7 days. All patients suffered minimal postoperative discomfort and nearly all resumed normal activity within one day after discharge. Complications requiring auxiliary procedures were few. The procedure was found to be safe, cost effective, extremely well received by patients, and superior to all other methods of removing renal stones. This study confirms that treatment by ESWL is a specialised urological procedure that requires operators who are also trained in open, percutaneous, and ureteroscopic surgery and with a back up of a radiological team skilled in percutaneous renal puncture.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To compare extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and laser induced shock wave lithotripsy (LISL) of retained bile duct stones to stone free rate, number of therapeutic sessions, and costs. PATIENTS: Thirty four patients were randomly assigned to either ESWL or LISL therapy. The main reasons for failure of standard endoscopy were due to stone impaction (n = 12), biliary stricture (n = 8), or large stone diameter (n = 14). METHODS: An extracorporeal piezoelectic lithotripter with ultrasonic guidance and a rhodamine 6G laser with an integrated stone tissue detection system were used. LISL was performed exclusively under radiological control. RESULTS: Using the initial methods complete stone fragmentation was achieved in nine of 17 patients (52.4%) of the ESWL group and in 14 of 17 patients (82.4%) in the LISL group, or combined with additional fragmentation techniques 31 of the 34 patients (91.2%) were stone free at the end of treatment. In comparison LISL tended to be more efficient in clearing the bile ducts (p = 0.07, NS). Significantly less fragmentation sessions (1.29 v 2.82; p = 0.0001) and less additional endoscopic sessions (0.65 v 1.6; p = 0.002) were necessary in the LISL group. There were no major complications in either procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ESWL, fluoroscopically guided LISL achieves stone disintegration more rapidly and with significantly less treatment sessions, which leads to a significant reduction in cost.
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) has revolutionized the treatment of urinary calculi and became the accepted standard therapy for the majority of stone patients. Only for stones located in the lower calix, ESWL displayed a limited efficacy. Since the stone-free rate seemed to be preferential, endoscopic maneuvers like percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) have been proposed as the primary approach for this stone localization.
Stone size seems to be the most important parameter in regard to the stone-free rate, whereas anatomical characteristics of the lower pole collecting system are discussed controversial. Various studies show a good stone clearance between 70-84% for stones up to 1 cm in diameter. Additional physical and medical measures are suitable to improve treatment results. Stone remnants after ESWL, defined as clinical insignificant residual fragments (CIRF) will not cause problems in every case and will pass until up to 24 months after treatment; in total 80-90% of all patients will become stone-free or at least symptom-free.
When complete stone-free status is the primary goal, follow-up examinations with new radiological technologies like spiral CT show that the stone-free rate of ESWL and endoscopically treated patients (RIRS) does not differ significantly. However, in comparison to endoscopic stone removal, shockwave therapy is noninvasive, anesthesia-free and can be performed in an outpatient setup. Therefore, ESWL remains the first choice option for the treatment of lower caliceal stones up to 1 cm. The patient will definitely favour this procedure.
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy; lower pole; nephrolithiasis
BACKGROUND—There have been conflicting reports as to whether pancreatic ductal drainage achieved by endoscopy and lithotripsy improves the clinical outcome of patients with chronic pancreatitis.
AIMS—To determine the clinical outcome in patients with chronic pancreatitis who received extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), and were followed up for two to eight years.
METHODS—Eighty patients with severe chronic pancreatitis and endoscopically unretrievable obstructive stones underwent ESWL with a piezoelectric lithotripter between 1989 and 1996. Clinical status, relief of symptoms, further endoscopic or surgical interventions, and mortality were defined.
RESULTS—Forty three (54%) patients were treated successfully with ESWL. The only feature associated with treatment success was the presence of a single stone rather than multiple stones. Successfully treated patients tended to experience less pain, although this did not reach statistical significance. A slight increase in weight was noted in our patients; however, there was no notable improvement in anomalous stools and diabetes mellitus. Five patients died due to extrapancreatic reasons. No pancreatic carcinomas developed.
CONCLUSIONS—ESWL associated with endoscopic drainage is a safe technique that is particularly successful in patients with a single stone. However, pancreatic drainage by endoscopy and ESWL has almost no effect on pain in chronic pancreatitis. Furthermore, endoscopic management and ESWL does not prevent or postpone the development of glandular insufficiency.
Keywords: chronic pancreatitis; pancreatic duct stone; extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; metabolic function of the pancreas
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a safe and effective treatment of upper urinary tract calculi. While serious side effects are rare, transient cardiac dysrhythmias (CD) may be associated with ESWL. The exact etiology of these events, which are often unpredictable, is poorly understood. Awareness of CD during ESWL and identification of risk factors for developing them could help clinicians predict and manage them safely and effectively. The current study examines selected variables to determine whether they may predispose individuals to developing CD during ESWL.
We compared 16 patients who experienced CD during ESWL to 56 control patients. Cases and controls were compared with respect to several continuous and discrete variables, including age, pre-treatment heart rate, number of shocks received during treatment, energy setting of the lithotripter, gender, presence of a ureteric stent, previous ESWL and side being treated.
Cardiac dysrhythmias occurred more frequently in younger patients and in those being treated for right-sided stones. The other variables did not influence the likelihood of CD. All CD resolved promptly following conversion to electrocardiogram (ECG)-gating.
Younger age and right-sided treatment predisposed individuals to developing CD during ESWL. Careful ECG monitoring should be performed during treatment.
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for urolithiasis was developed for more than 30 years. It benefited most patients suffering from acute renal colic. The ESWL may be performed at outpatient based in most hospital in Taiwan. But the post-ESWL emergency room (ER) visits will be a painful experience for patient and the urologist, especially those patients visited ER immediately on the same day of ESWL. Though most guidelines for ESWL suggest the larger stone burden, the higher risk for post-ESWL ER visits, there are about 10% patients will come back to ER due to renal colic post-operatively. We use artificial neural network (ANN) to predict the post-ESWL ER visit for patient with urolithiasis. The result disclosed high sensitivity and specificity of prediction. In conclusion, it will decrease the rate of post-ER visit rate and patients’ suffer by using ANN to predict the post-ESWL ER visits.
ESWL; Artificial Neural Network; Urolithiasis; Quality of care
We examined the effectiveness of laser lithotripsy with a flash-lamp-pumped tunable dye laser in the treatment of ureteral calculi that were too large for direct extraction and that could not be treated with or had not responded to extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or forms of ureteroscopic lithotripsy other than laser lithotripsy. In 20 (74%) of the 27 patients the laser alone successfully fragmented the calculi into pieces small enough to pass spontaneously or to be easily extracted with a basket. In five (19%) laser lithotripsy was partially successful: another procedure (ESWL in three and fragment extraction with a basket in two) was needed. In two patients (7%) the stones could not be fragmented with the laser, and either ESWL or percutaneous antegrade extraction was performed. At follow-up 3 months after treatment there was no sign of stone fragments in 26 (96%) of the patients. We believe that laser lithotripsy is a safe and effective method of ureteral stone fragmentation.
This study was designed to compare different methods of treating renal calculi in order to establish which was the most cost effective and successful. Of 1052 patients with renal calculi, 350 underwent open surgery, 350 percutaneous nephrolithotomy, 328 extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), and 24 both percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ESWL. Treatment was defined as successful if stones were eliminated or reduced to less than 2 mm after three months. Success was achieved in 273 (78%) patients after open surgery, 289 (83%) after percutaneous nephrolithotomy, 301 (92%) after ESWL, and 15 (62%) after percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ESWL. Comparative total costs to the NHS were estimated as 3500 pounds for open surgery, 1861 pounds for percutaneous nephrolithotomy, 1789 pounds for ESWL, and 3210 pounds for both ESWL and nephrolithotomy. ESWL caused no blood loss and little morbidity and is the cheapest and quickest way of returning patients to normal life.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of tamsulosin on stone clearance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in patients with a single proximal ureteral stone.
Materials and Methods
This prospective randomized controlled trial was performed on 88 patients with a single proximal ureteral stone. After consenting with a doctor, the patients were allocated to the treatment (tamsulosin 0.2 mg once a day) or control (no medication) group, and the efficacy of tamsulosin was evaluated. The primary outcome of this study was the stone-free rate, and the secondary outcomes were the period until clearance, pain intensity, analgesic requirement, and incidence of complications.
A stone-free state was reported in 37 patients (84.1%) in the treatment group and 29 (65.9%) in the control group (p=0.049). The mean expulsion period of the stone fragments was 10.0 days in the treatment group and 13.2 days in the control group (p=0.012). There were no statistically significant differences in aceclofenac requirement or pain score between the two groups. Only one patient in the treatment group experienced transient dizziness associated with medical expulsive therapy, and this adverse event disappeared spontaneously.
The results of this prospective randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of tamsulosin after ESWL for a single proximal ureteral stone suggest that tamsulosin helps in the earlier clearance of stone fragments and reduces the expulsion period of stone fragments after ESWL.
Lithotripsy; Tamsulosin; Urolithiasis
Kidney stone formation or Urolithiasis is a complex process that results from series of several physicochemical events including super-saturation, nucleation, growth, aggregation and retention within the kidneys. Among the treatments include Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and drug treatment. Even this ESWL treatment may cause acute renal injury, decrease in renal function and increase in stone recurrence. In addition, persistent residual stone fragments and possibility of infection after ESWL represent a serious problem in the treatment of stones. Data from in-vitro, in-vivo and clinical trials reveal that phytotherapeutic agents could be useful as either alternative or an adjunct therapy in the management of Urolithiasis. Medicinal plants /natural products are more acceptable to the body because they promote the repair mechanism in natural way. Various plant species of the genus Bergenia, have been reported to posses antiurolithiatic property. Bergenia ligulata (Wall.) Engl, is one the ingredient of reputed herbal formulation Cy stone for the treatment of kidney stones. In this study alcohol, butanol, ethyl acetate extracts and isolated phenolic compounds from the Ayurvedic and Unani herb, Bergenia ciliata (Haw.) Sternb. leaves (Saxifragaceae) were evaluated for their potential to dissolve experimentally prepared kidney stones-calcium oxalate and calcium phosphate, by an in-vitro model. Phenolic compound P1 isolated from the ethyl acetate fraction of the leaves, demonstrated highest dissolution of both stones when compared to test extracts at 10 mg concentration. However, it was more effective in dissolving calcium phosphate stones (67.74 %) than oxalate (36.95%). Reference standard-formulation Cystone was found to be more effective (48.48%) when compared to compound P1.
Bergenia ciliata; kidney stones; Urolithiatic; Calcium oxalate; Calcium phosphate
An intravenous urogram (IVU) has traditionally been considered mandatory before treating renal and ureteric stones by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). This study was designed to see whether there is a difference in complications and the need for ancillary procedures in patients managed by ESWL for renal and ureteric calculi, according to preoperative imaging technique.
This retrospective study compared 133 patients undergoing ESWL from January 2001 to July 2002. Patients were divided into three groups according to the preoperative imaging technique used: i) IVU; ii) non-contrast enhanced helical computed tomography (UHCT); and iii) ultrasound (US) + X-ray kidney, ureter and bladder (KUB). The groups were matched in terms of age and gender, as well as location, side and size of stones.
There was no statistically significantly difference for number of ESWL sessions, number of shock waves and use of ancillary procedures between the three groups. The stone-free rate was 98% for the IVU and UHCT groups, and 97% for the US + X-ray KUB group.
The complication rate and need for ancillary procedures was comparable across the three groups. Patients imaged by UHCT or US + X-ray KUB prior to ESWL for uncomplicated renal and ureteric stones do not require IVU.
The symptoms of 100 patients with gall bladder stone disease were prospectively analysed before and after successful treatment with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and oral bile acids. This is of considerable clinical interest because complaints after cholecystectomy persist in 21-47% of patients (postcholecystectomy syndrome). Before ESWL, 37 patients had unspecific abdominal symptoms (feeling of fullness and pressure, or slight pain, or both, in the right upper abdomen, flatulence, nausea, or food intolerance) and 63 patients had typical biliary symptoms (severe steady pain of more than 15 minutes and less than five hours duration in the right upper abdomen, in some cases radiating to the epigastrium or the back) either exclusively or with unspecific abdominal complaints. After becoming stone free, 72 of 100 patients lost the symptoms they had before treatment. All 28 patients with persisting symptoms had unspecific abdominal symptoms before treatment (exclusively unspecific symptoms and unspecific plus typical biliary symptoms). In contrast, patients with typical biliary symptoms before ESWL lost these in 95% of all cases. Although the anatomical structures are left intact after ESWL, the percentages of stone free patients with persisting symptoms are similar to those after cholecystectomy.
Minimally invasive therapy is currently invaluable for the treatment of biliary stones. Clinicians should be familiar with the various endoscopic modalities that have been evolving. I reviewed the treatment of biliary stones from the common practice to pioneering procedures, and here I also briefly summarize the results of many related studies. Lithotripsy involves procedures that fragment large stones, and they can be roughly classified into two groups: intracorporeal modalities and extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Intracorporeal modalities are further divided into mechanical lithotripsy (ML), electrohydraulic lithotripsy, and laser lithotripsy. ESWL can break stones by focusing high-pressure shock-wave energy at a designated target point. Balloon dilation after minimal endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is effective for retrieving large biliary stones without the use of ML. Peroral cholangioscopy provides direct visualization of the bile duct and permits diagnostic procedures or therapeutic interventions. Biliary stenting below an impacted stone is sometimes worth considering as an alternative treatment in elderly patients. This article focuses on specialized issues such as lithotripsy rather than simple EST with stone removal in order to provide important information on state-of-the-art procedures.
Biliary stone; Lithotripsy; Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation; Cholangioscopy; Biliary stenting
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment with Dornier HM3 or MPL 9000 machines was applied in 37 patients with problematic bile duct stones. General anaesthesia was not required. After one extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy session 14/37 patients (38%) were spontaneously stone free, and additional endoscopic extraction (eight of 37) and retreatments with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (seven cases) increased the stone free rate to 29/37 (78%). In three patients with intrahepatic stones, the bile ducts could not be evaluated decisively at cholangiography and ultrasonography, but they were all symptom free at 15 to 38 months follow up. If these three patients are added to the radiologically stone free patients, the overall clinical success rate was 32/37 (86%). There were no serious complications, hospital admissions, or 30 day mortality as a result of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or endoscopic procedures. It is concluded that extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is a valuable adjunct to the non-surgical treatment of bile duct stones.