The effect of renal cortical thickness on the treatment outcomes of kidney stones treated with shockwave lithotripsy

Purpose Because the shock wave passes through various body tissues before reaching the stone, stone composition may affect the treatment efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). We investigated the effect of various tissue components along the shock wave path on the success of SWL. Materials and Methods From October 2008 to August 2010, a total of 206 patients with kidney stones sized 5 to 20 mm were prospectively recruited for a study of the factors that affect the outcome of treatment with a Sonolith Vision lithotripter. Successful SWL was defined as either stone-free status or residual fragments <4 mm at 12 weeks. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the factors that predicted treatment outcomes. Potential predictors included the patient's age, shock wave delivery rate, stone volume (SV), mean stone density (MSD), skin-to-stone distance (SSD), and the mean thickness of the three main components along the shock wave path: renal cortical thickness (KT), muscle thickness (MT), and soft-tissue thickness (ST). Results The mean age of the patients was 53.8 years (range, 25-82 years). The overall treatment success rate after one session of SWL was 43.2%. The mean KT, MT, and ST were 26.9, 16.6, and 40.8 mm, respectively. The logistic regression results showed that a slower shock wave delivery rate, smaller SV, a lower MSD, and a thicker KT were found to be significant predictors for successful SWL. SSD, MT, and ST were not predictors of successful treatment. Conclusions Among the main tissue components along the shock wave path, a thicker KT was a favorable factor for successful SWL after adjustment for SV, MSD, and the shock wave delivery rate.

[1]  M. Desai,et al.  Evolution of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) technique: a 25‐year single centre experience of >5000 patients , 2014, BJU International.

[2]  J. Mcateer,et al.  Effect of the body wall on lithotripter shock waves. , 2014, Journal of endourology.

[3]  N Grenier,et al.  Renal ultrasound elastography. , 2013, Diagnostic and interventional imaging.

[4]  D. Koya,et al.  Pathophysiology of the aging kidney and therapeutic interventions , 2012, Hypertension Research.

[5]  K. Wong,et al.  A prospective, randomized study of the clinical effects of shock wave delivery for unilateral kidney stones: 60 versus 120 shocks per minute. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[6]  Y. Chou,et al.  Abdominal fat distribution on computed tomography predicts ureteric calculus fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy , 2012, European Radiology.

[7]  Hoon Choi,et al.  Analyzing the Effect of Distance from Skin to Stone by Computed Tomography Scan on the Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Stone-Free Rate of Renal Stones , 2012, Korean journal of urology.

[8]  D. Choudhury,et al.  Kidney aging—inevitable or preventable? , 2011, Nature Reviews Nephrology.

[9]  F. Hammad,et al.  The effect of fat and nonfat components of the skin-to-stone distance on shockwave lithotripsy outcome. , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[10]  Yong Il Park,et al.  Evaluation of Possible Predictive Variables for the Outcome of Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Renal Stones , 2010, Korean journal of urology.

[11]  D. Ghiculete,et al.  Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi , 2010, Urological Research.

[12]  O. Togao,et al.  Assessment of renal fibrosis with diffusion-weighted MR imaging: study with murine model of unilateral ureteral obstruction. , 2010, Radiology.

[13]  F. Hammad,et al.  The effect of fat, muscle, and kidney on stone fragmentation by shockwave lithotripsy: an in vitro study. , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[14]  S. Bhayani Development of a Scoring System From Noncontrast Computerized Tomography Measurements to Improve the Selection of Upper Ureteral Stone for Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy , 2009 .

[15]  Mantu Gupta,et al.  Skin to stone distance is an independent predictor of stone-free status following shockwave lithotripsy. , 2009, Journal of endourology.

[16]  J. Lee,et al.  Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. , 2008, Urology.

[17]  A. Smaldone,et al.  Effect of skin-to-stone distance on shockwave lithotripsy success. , 2008, Journal of endourology.

[18]  C. Thaxton,et al.  Radiographic parameters on noncontrast computerized tomography predictive of shock wave lithotripsy success. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[19]  D. Tolley,et al.  Is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy the preferred treatment option for elderly patients with urinary stone? A multivariate analysis of the effect of patient age on treatment outcome , 2007, BJU international.

[20]  A. El-Assmy,et al.  A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomography. , 2007, European urology.

[21]  D. Tolley,et al.  Single-center experience using three shockwave lithotripters with different generator designs in management of urinary calculi. , 2006, Journal of endourology.

[22]  S. Nakada,et al.  Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. , 2005, Urology.

[23]  T. Tominaga,et al.  Correlation between age and the efficacy of ESWL , 2005, BJU international.

[24]  L A Crum,et al.  In vivo pressure measurements of lithotripsy shock waves in pigs. , 1998, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[25]  W. Hoy,et al.  Low incidence of glomerulosclerosis in normal kidneys. , 1989, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.