Home > Journals > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Past Issues > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 December;71(6) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 December;71(6):644-50



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as


ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Free accessfree

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 December;71(6):644-50

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03346-0


language: English

Factors predictive of shockwave lithotripsy failure for ureteral stones: why we need to hurry

Giorgio MAZZON 1, Nicola PAVAN 2 , Gaetano CHIAPPARRONE 2, Bernardino DE CONCILIO 3, Carlo TROMBETTA 2

1 Institute of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK; 2 Department of Urology, Cattinara Hospital, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy; 3 Department of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Bassano del Grappa, Vicenza, Italy

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study are to evaluate the prognostic factors of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with ureteric stones, and to identify which patients might directly benefit of an endoscopic treatment.
METHODS: We performed a prospective study from January 2013 and July 2016 on patients with single ureteric stone and undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). We divided patients into two groups: first group (success group) included cases resolved with SWL only, and a second group (failure group) including patients with stone not resolved by SWL and requiring an endoscopic treatment. We evaluated age, weight, height, body mass index, stone size, hydronephrosis, laterality, location, days elapsed from onset of symptoms to SWL and stone density when computed tomography was performed. In case of stone fragments >4 mm, the procedure was repeated up to a maximum of three times. SWL was considered as failed if patients had a residual stone of any size after a follow-up of 3 months or if a complication occurred.
RESULTS: 274 patients completed follow-up and were enrolled in the study. Mean age was 53.22 years (standard deviation: 13.98). SWL overall success rate was 84.3% (231 patients successfully treated with shockwaves) and failure rate was 15.7% (43 patients underwent auxiliary endoscopic procedure). At the univariate analysis, we observed a statistically significant difference for hydronephrosis (P=0.006), time elapsed from symptoms onset (P=0.013), patients’ age (P=0.06) and mean stone density (0.023). In the multivariate logistic regression, patients’ age (OR: 1.517), and time elapsed from obstruction to SWL (OR: 3.005) were independent predictive factors for SWL failure. Furthermore, moderate and severe hydronephrosis seemed to be independent predictive factors for SWL failure, presenting an OR of 2.451 and 4.207 respectively. High stone density resulted to be a predictive factor for SWL failure (OR: 2.293 if density was higher than 1100 Hounsfield Units).
CONCLUSIONS: We report a large series of patients undergone primary SWL for ureteric stones. Our data demonstrated the role of hydronephrosis, time elapsed from obstruction onset to treatment and stone density as independent predictive factors of SWL failure.

KEY WORDS: Extracorporeal shockwave therapy; Lithotripsy, Ureteroscopy; Calculi; Urolithiasis

top of page