Relationship Between Patient Position and Pain Severity During Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Stones With the MODULITH SLX-F2 Lithotripter: A Matched Case-Control Study

Purpose We evaluated the association between shock wave lithotripsy (SWL)-related pain and patient positioning during SWL. Materials and Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 162 patients who underwent their first SWL session for single renal stones from May 2010 to August 2011. One hundred thirteen patients underwent SWL in the supine position and 49 did so in the lateral position. To evaluate an unbiased estimation of the positional effect on pain severity during SWL, both groups (supine vs. lateral) were matched according to sex, age, body mass index, stone location, and stone size. Thirty-four patients from each group were selected for analysis. Pain was evaluated with an average visual analogue scale (VAS-avg) and maximum visual analogue scale (VAS-max). Analgesic usage was also compared between the groups. Results All patients (n=34) in the supine group had radio-opaque stones compared with only 47.1% of the patients in the lateral group (n=16). The VAS-avg and VAS-max of the lateral group were significantly lower than those of the supine group (1.2±1.0 and 3.1±1.7 for VAS-avg and 2.5±1.8 and 4.7±1.9 for VAS-max, respectively, p<0.05). However, analgesic usage between groups did not differ significantly (17.6% in the supine group vs. 5.9% in the lateral group, p=0.259). In a subgroup analysis confined to patients with radio-opaque stones, the supine group still suffered more pain. Conclusions Patients with renal stones suffered more SWL-related pain in the supine position than in the lateral position. During SWL, positioning of patients should be considered a predictive factor for SWL-related pain.

[1]  V. Hancı,et al.  Pain Perception During Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Does It Correlate With Patient and Stone Characteristics? , 2010, Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA.

[2]  H. Wallerand,et al.  Predictive risk factors for pain during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. , 2009, Journal of endourology.

[3]  N. Buchholz,et al.  Pain in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy , 2009, Urological Research.

[4]  N. Gupta,et al.  Analgesia for pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Current status , 2008, Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India.

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

[6]  R. Fillingim,et al.  Individual differences in pain responses , 2005, Current rheumatology reports.

[7]  Seung-June Oh,et al.  Subjective Pain Scale and the Need for Analgesia during Shock Wave Lithotripsy , 2005, Urologia Internationalis.

[8]  E. Schmiedt,et al.  Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) of kidney and ureteric stones , 1984, International Urology and Nephrology.

[9]  M. Iadarola,et al.  Comparison of experimental and acute clinical pain responses in humans as pain phenotypes. , 2004, The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society.

[10]  A. Apan,et al.  Comparison of Three Analgesics for Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy , 2002, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology.

[11]  P. Somprakit,et al.  Both EMLA and Placebo Cream Reduced Pain during Extracorporeal Piezoelectric Shock Wave Lithotripsy with the Piezolith 2300 , 2000, Anesthesiology.

[12]  F. Debruyne,et al.  The use of local anesthesia in second generation extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: eutectic mixture of local anesthetics. , 1991, The Journal of urology.

[13]  C. Chapman,et al.  Pain measurement: an overview , 1985, Pain.