TITLE: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Kidney ... · Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Kidney Stones 3 One evidence-based guideline24 was identified regarding the

Disclaimer: The Rapid Response Service is an information service for those involved in planning and providing health care in Canada. Rapid responses are based on a limited literature search and are not comprehensive, systematic review s. The intent is to

provide a list of sources of the best evidence on the topic that the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) could identify using all reasonable efforts within the time allow ed. Rapid responses should be considered along w ith other ty pes of information and health care considerations. The information included in this response is not intended to replace professional medical

advice, nor should it be construed as a recommendation for or against the use of a particular health technology. Readers are also cautioned that a lack of good quality evidence does not necessarily mean a lack of effectiveness particularly in the case of new and emerging health technologies, for w hich little information can be found, but w hich may in future prove to be effective. While CADTH has taken care in the preparation of the report to ensure that its contents are accurate, complete and up to date, CADTH does not

make any guarantee to that effect. CADTH is not liable for any loss or damages resulting from use of the information in the report. Copyright: This report contains CADTH copyright material and may contain material in w hich a third party ow ns copyright. This report may be used for the purposes of research or private study only. It may not be copied, posted on a w eb site,

redistributed by email or stored on an electronic system w ithout the prior w ritten permission of CADTH or applicable copyright ow ner. Links: This report may contain links to other information available on the w ebsites of third parties on the Internet. CADTH does not

have control over the content of such sites. Use of third party sites is governed by the ow ners ow n terms and conditions.

TITLE: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Kidney Stones: Clinical Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Guidelines

DATE: 01 September 2016

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the clinical effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of kidney stones?

2. What is the cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of kidney stones?

3. What are the evidence-based guidelines regarding the use of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of kidney stones?

KEY FINDINGS

Twelve systematic reviews, nine randomized controlled trials, two economic evaluations, and one evidence-based guideline were identified regarding extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for kidney stones. METHODS

A limited literature search was conducted on key resources including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases, Canadian and major international health technology agencies, as well as a focused Internet search. No methodological filters were applied to limit retrieval. Where possible, retrieval was limited to the human population. The search was also limited to English language documents published between January 01 2012 and August 16 2016. Internet links were provided, where available. The summary of findings was prepared from the abstracts of the relevant information. Please note that data contained in abstracts may not always be an accurate reflection of the data contained within the full article.

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Kidney Stones 2

SELECTION CRITERIA

One reviewer screened citations and selected studies based on the inclusion criteria presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Selection Criteria

Population Patients with kidney stones Intervention Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy Comparator Q1 and Q2: Any active comparator

Q1 and Q3: No comparator required Outcomes Q1: Clinical benefits and harms

Q2: Costeffectiveness outcomes (e.g., cost per benefit, outcome, or QALY) Q3: Evidence-based guidelines regarding the use of lithotripsy

Study Designs Health technology assessments, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, economic evaluations, evidence-based guidelines

QALY = quality-adjusted life year.

RESULTS

Rapid Response reports are organized so that the higher quality evidence is presented first. Therefore, health technology assessment reports, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses are presented first. These are followed by randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, economic evaluations, and evidence-based guidelines. Twelve systematic reviews, nine randomized controlled trials, two economic evaluations, and one evidence-based guideline were identified regarding extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for kidney stones. Additional references of potential interest are provided in the appendix. OVERALL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Twelve systematic reviews,1-12 nine randomized controlled trials,13-21 two economic evaluations,22-23 and one evidence-based guideline24 were identified regarding extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for kidney stones. Due to a large number of relevant studies identified, non-randomized studies were included in the appendix. A summary of the systematic reviews1-12 and their conclusions is provided in Table 2, and a summary of the randomized controlled trials

13-21 and their conclusions is provided in Table 3.

Two economic evaluations22-23 were identified regarding the cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal SWL for kidney stones compared with uteroscopic lithotripsy. Two economic evaluations reported the conditions under which SWL is cost-effective:

When stone-free rates with SWL are at least 60% to 64%22 or 65% to 67%23; and

When stone-free rates with uteroscopic lithotripsy are less than 57% to 76%22 or 72% to 84%23


One evidence-based guideline24 was identified regarding the use of extracorporeal SWL for kidney stones. The guideline provided a number of recommendations regarding SWL and uteroscopy (URS), including: General recommendations

Clinicians should inform patients that SWL is the procedure with the least morbidity and lowest complication rate, but URS has a greater stone-free rate in a single procedure. Strong recommendation, Grade B, page 2

In patients with mid- or distal ureteral stones who require intervention, clinicians should recommend URS as first-line therapy. For patients who decline URS, clinicians should offer SWL. Strong recommendation, Grade B, page 2

SWL should not be used in the patient with anatomic or functional obstruction of the collecting system or ureter distal to the stone. Strong recommendation, Grade C, page 3

Clinicians should offer URS or SWL for pediatric patients with ureteral stones who are unlikely to pass the stones or who failed observation and/or medical expulsive therapy, based on patient-specific anatomy and body habitus. Strong recommendation, Grade B, page 4

Treatment according to renal stone size:

10 mm: SWL or URS may be used (Strong recommendation, Grade B) > 10 mm: SWL should not be used as first-line therapy (Strong recommendation, Grade

B)

20 mm: SWL or URS may be used (Strong recommendation, Grade B)

> 20 mm: SWL should not be used as first-line therapy (Moderate recommendation, Grade C)

Treatment according to renal stone size in pediatric patients:

20 mm: SWL or URS may be used (Moderate recommendation, Grade C)

> 20 mm: SWL and percutaneous nephrolithotomy are acceptable treatments (Expert opinion)

o If SWL is used, an internalized ureteral stent or nephrostomy tube should be placed (Expert opinion)


Table 2: Summary of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Author (Year)

Population Intervention Comparator(s) Outcome(s) Conclusionsa

Cui et al. (2015)1

Patients with ureteral stones > 10 mm in size

ESWL Ureteroscopic lithotripsy

Effectiveness (stone-free rate, retreatment rate)

Safety (complication rate)

For treating large (>10 mm) proximate ureteral stones, ureteroscopic lithotripsy tends to be more effective than ESWL, yet without adding significant risk.

Deng et al. (2015)2

Patients with urinary stones

SWL No comparator Safety (risk of developing new-onset diabetes mellitus)

there is no association between shock wave lithotripsy for urinary stone and new-onset [diabetes mellitus].

Donaldson et al. (2015)3

Adult patients with < 20 mm lower-pole stones

SWL RIRS PNL

Effectiveness (stone-free rate)

Meta-analyses for stone-free rate at 10 mm stones, but the magnitude of benefit was markedly less for



Author (Year)


effects.

Lee et al. (2015)5

Patients treated for lower pole renal calculi < 20 mm in size

ESWL PNL Ureterorenoscopy

ESWL with adjuvant therapy (such as inversion, hydration, and forced diuresis)

Effectiveness (stone clearance)

Safety (adverse events)

In stones of



Author (Year)


of treatment was less with ESWL.

Xu et al. (2014)8

Patients with ureteral calculi

ESWL Ureteroscopic lithrotripsy

Effectiveness (stone-free rate, repeat treatment rate, operation time, hospital stays)

Safety (postoperative complications)

Compared to the ureteroscopic lithotripsy treatment, ESWL provided a significantly lower post-treatment stone free rate, but it also obviously brought out less postoperative complications, shorter operation time and hospital stays.

Aboumarzouk et al. (2012)9

Adults with ureteric stones

ESWL Ureteroscopy Effectiveness (stone-free rate, hospital stays)


Compared with ESWL, ureteroscopic removal of ureteral stones achieves a greater stone-free state, but with a higher complication rate and longer hospital stay.

Matlaga et al. (2012)10

Patients with distal and proximal ureteral stones and renal stones

SWL PNL

Ureteroscopy

Effectiveness (stone-free rate, retreatment)


Semirigid ureteroscopy is more efficacious than SWL for distal ureteral stones.

Matlage et al. (2012)11

Patients with ureteral and/or renal stones

SWL Ureteroscopy Cost-effectiveness (stone-free rate and cost)

most studies demonstrated that ureteroscopy was more favorable than SWL for ureteral stones in stone-free rate and cost.



Author (Year)


Picozzi et al. (2012)12

Patients with ureteral stones

SWL No comparator Effectiveness (stone-free rate)


immediate SWL for a stone-induced acute renal colic seems to be a safe treatment with high success rate.

ESWL = extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; PNL = percutaneous nephrolithotomy; RIRS = retrograde intrarenal surgery; SWL = shock w ave lithotripsy. a Verbatim conclusions as presented in the abstract.

Table 3: Summary of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author (Year)


Kamel et al. (2015)13

98 patients with radiopaque lower ureteric stones < 10 mm in size

SWL No comparator Effectiveness (stone-free rate, success rate)

Transgluteal SWL while patient in supine position proved efficacy for treatment of distal ureteric stones.

Kumar et al. (2015)14

45 patients with a single 1-2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal stone

SWL RIRS

Miniperc

Effectiveness (stone-free rate, operative time)

Safety (complication rate, radiation exposure)

Miniperc and [RIRS] were more effective than [SWL] to treat 1 to 2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi in terms of a better stone-free rate, and less auxiliary and re-treatment rates. However, miniperc resulted in more complications, greater operative time and radiation exposure, and a longer hospital stay.


106 pediatric patients (< 15 years) with a

SWL Miniperc Effectiveness (stone-free rate, retreatment rates)

Safety (complication

Miniperc is more efficacious than SWL for treatment of radiopaque



Author (Year)


single radiopaque lower caliceal renal stones 1-2 cm in size

rate) lower caliceal renal calculi 1 to 2 cm in children in terms of higher stone-free rate and lesser auxiliary and re-treatment rates. Miniperc, however, resulted in more complication, operative time, radiation exposure, and hospital stay.


90 patients with single radiopaque upper ureteral stones < 2 cm in size

SWL Semirigid ureteroscopy

Effectiveness (stone-free rate, retreatment rate)


Both SWL and semirigid ureteroscopy are safe and highly efficacious for treating patients with proximal ureteral stones



Author (Year)


efficacy comparable to it. However, for 10-20 mm stones, RIRS was more effective, with less retreatment rate.

Wazir et al. (2015)18

112 patients with distal ureteric stones 6-12 mm in size

ESWL Ureteroscopy Effectiveness (stone clearance)

[ESWL] shows acceptable stone clearance but ureteroscopy with intra-corporeal lithotripsy shows superior results in distal ureteric stones.

Manzoor et al. (2013)19

190 patients with 10-15 mm proximal ureteric stones

ESWL Ureterorenoscopic manipulation with intracorporeal lithotripsy

Effectiveness (success rate, retreatment rate)


Although ESWL is regarded as the preferred choice of treatment for proximal ureteric stone, the present results suggest that ureterorenoscopic manipulation with intracorporeal lithotripsy is safe alternative, with an advantage of obtaining an earlier or immediate stone-free status.

Islam et al. (2012)20

136 patients with lower ureteric stone

ESWL Ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy

Effectiveness (stone-free rate)


Ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy proved more effective than ESWL for the treatment of ureteric calculi. However, ESWL performed as an outpatient procedure showed fewer complications.



Author (Year)


Lopes et al. (2012)21

48 patients with large proximal ureteral stones (greater than 1 cm in size)

ESWL Semirigid ureterolithotripsy

Laparoscopic reterolithotomy

Effectiveness (success rate, stone-free rates, number of treatment sessions)


[ESWL] had a 35.7% success rate, semirigid ureterolithotripsy 62.5% and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy 93.3%. Stone-free rates showed a statistically significant difference among the groups. Patients treated with Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy vs semirigid ureterolithotripsy vs ESWL required fewer treatment sessions. Neither major nor long-term complications were observed.

ESWL = extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; RIRS = retrograde intrarenal surgery; SWL = shock w ave lithotripsy. a Verbatim conclusions as presented in the abstract.


REFERENCES SUMMARIZED

Health Technology Assessments

No literature identified. Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

1. Cui X, Ji F, Yan H, Ou TW, Jia CS, He XZ, et al. Comparison between extracorporeal

shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis. Urology. 2015 Apr;85(4):748-56. PubMed: PM25681251

2. Deng T, Liao B, Tian Y, Luo D, Liu J, Jin T, et al. New-onset diabetes mellitus after shock wave lithotripsy for urinary stone: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2015 Jun;43(3):227-31. PubMed: PM25753541

3. Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):612-6. PubMed: PM25449204

4. Fankhauser CD, Kranzbuhler B, Poyet C, Hermanns T, Sulser T, Steurer J. Long-term adverse effects of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis: a systematic review. Urology. 2015 May;85(5):991-1006. PubMed: PM25917723

5. Lee SW, Chaiyakunapruk N, Chong HY, Liong ML. Comparative effectiveness and safety of various treatment procedures for lower pole renal calculi: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2015 Aug;116(2):252-64. PubMed: PM25381743

6. Zhang W, Zhou T, Wu T, Gao X, Peng Y, Xu C, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole renal stones: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Endourol. 2015 Jul;29(7):745-59. PubMed: PM25531986

7. Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;11:CD007044, 2014. PubMed: PM25418417

8. Xu Y, Lu Y, Li J, Luo S, Liu Y, Jia Z, et al. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of ureteroscopic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on ureteral calculi. Acta Cir Bras [Internet]. 2014 May [cited 2016 Aug 31];29(5):346-52. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/acb/v29n5/0102-8650-acb-29-05-00346.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25681251http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25753541http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25449204http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25917723http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25381743http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25531986http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25418417http://www.scielo.br/pdf/acb/v29n5/0102-8650-acb-29-05-00346.pdf


PubMed: PM24863324

9. Aboumarzouk OM, Kata SG, Keeley FX, McClinton S, Nabi G. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(5). PubMed: PM22592707

10. Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, Byrne TW, Lingeman JE. Treatment of ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Urol [Internet]. 2012 Jul [cited 2016 Aug 31];188(1):130-7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3774029 PubMed: PM22591962

11. Matlaga BR, Jansen JP, Meckley LM, Byrne TW, Lingeman JE. Economic outcomes of treatment for ureteral and renal stones: a systematic literature review. J Urol [Internet]. 2012 Aug [cited 2016 Aug 31];188(2):449-54. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3787850 PubMed: PM22698623

12. Picozzi SC, Ricci C, Gaeta M, Casellato S, Stubinski R, Ratti D, et al. Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients. Urol Res. 2012 Dec;40(6):725-31. PubMed: PM22699356

Randomized Controlled Trials

13. Kamel M, Salem EA, Maarouf A, Abdalla M, Ragab A, Shahin AM. Supine

transgluteal vs prone position in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of distal ureteric stones. Urology. 2015 Jan;85(1):51-4. PubMed: PM25440820

14. Kumar A, Kumar N, Vasudeva P, Kumar JS, Kumar R, Singh H. A prospective, randomized comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and miniperc for treatment of 1 to 2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi: a single center experience. J Urol. 2015 Jan;193(1):160-4. PubMed: PM25066869

15. Kumar A, Kumar N, Vasudeva P, Kumar R, Jha SK, Singh H. A single center experience comparing miniperc and shockwave lithotripsy for treatment of radiopaque 1-2 cm lower caliceal renal calculi in children: a prospective randomized study. J Endourol. 2015 Jul;29(7):805-9. PubMed: PM25633506

16. Kumar A, Nanda B, Kumar N, Kumar R, Vasudeva P, Mohanty NK. A prospective randomized comparison between shockwave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones


17. Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Das MK, Jha SK. A prospective randomized comparison between shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower caliceal stones


PREPARED BY:

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Tel: 1-866-898-8439 www.cadth.ca

http://www.cadth.ca/


APPENDIX FURTHER INFORMATION:

Previous CADTH Reports

25. Lithotripsy for kidney stones or gallstones: a review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and guidelines [Internet]. Ottawa: CADTH; 2009 Oct 1. [cited 2016 Aug 31]. (Health technology inquiry service). Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/L0133_Lithotripsy_final.pdf

Randomized-Controlled Trials Alternate Comparators

26. Nguyen DP, Hnilicka S, Kiss B, Seiler R, Thalmann GN, Roth B. Optimization of

extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy delivery rates achieves excellent outcomes for ureteral stones: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol. 2015 Aug;194(2):418-23. PubMed: PM25661296

27. Park J, Kim HW, Hong S, Yang HJ, Chung H. Comparison of treatment outcomes according to output voltage during shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized multicenter study. World J Urol. 2015 May;33(5):609-15. PubMed: PM25387876

28. Salem HK, Fathy H, Elfayoumy H, Aly H, Ghonium A, Mohsen MA, et al. Slow vs rapid delivery rate shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol. 2014 May;191(5):1370-4. PubMed: PM24262496

29. Ng CF, Lo AK, Lee KW, Wong KT, Chung WY, Gohel D. A prospective, randomized study of the clinical effects of shock wave delivery for unilateral kidney stones: 60 versus 120 shocks per minute. J Urol. 2012 Sep;188(3):837-42. PubMed: PM22819406

Non-Randomized Studies

30. Chung VY, Turney BW. The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones. Urolithiasis. 2016 Jan 7. PubMed: PM26743071

31. Pirola GM, Micali S, Sighinolfi MC, Martorana E, Territo A, Puliatti S, et al. Evaluation of long-term side effects after shock-wave lithotripsy for renal calculi using a third generation electromagnetic lithotripter. Urolithiasis. 2016 Mar 11. PubMed: PM26968731

32. Abid N, Ravier E, Promeyrat X, Codas R, Fehri HF, Crouzet S, et al. Decreased radiation exposure and increased efficacy in extracorporeal lithotripsy using a new ultrasound stone locking system. J Endourol. 2015 Nov;29(11):1263-9. PubMed: PM26133199

33. Borofsky MS, El Tayeb MM, Paonessa JE, Lingeman JE. Initial experience and comparative efficacy of the UreTron: a new intracorporeal ultrasonic lithotriptor. Urology. 2015 Jun;85(6):1279-83.

https://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/L0133_Lithotripsy_final.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25661296http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25387876http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24262496http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22819406http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26743071http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26968731http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26133199


PubMed: PM26099874

34. Ding J, Zhang Y, Cao Q, Huang T, Xu W, Huang K, et al. Tailored minimally invasive management of complex calculi in horseshoe kidney. Journal of x-ray science and technology. 2015;23(5):601-10. PubMed: PM26409427

35. Hughes SF, Thomas-Wright SJ, Banwell J, Williams R, Moyes AJ, Mushtaq S, et al. A pilot study to evaluate haemostatic function, following shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the treatment of solitary kidney stones. PLoS ONE [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2016 Aug 31];10(5):e0125840, 2015. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418567 PubMed: PM25938233

36. Ichiyanagi O, Nagaoka A, Izumi T, Kawamura Y, Kato T. Age-related delay in urinary stone clearance in elderly patients with solitary proximal ureteral calculi treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urolithiasis. 2015 Oct;43(5):419-26. PubMed: PM25981235

37. Ng CF, Luke S, Chiu PK, Teoh JY, Wong KT, Hou SS. The effect of renal cortical thickness on the treatment outcomes of kidney stones treated with shockwave lithotripsy. Korean J Urol [Internet]. 2015 May [cited 2016 Aug 31];56(5):379-85. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4426510 PubMed: PM25964839

38. Torricelli FC, Marchini GS, Yamauchi FI, Danilovic A, Vicentini FC, Srougi M, et al. Impact of renal anatomy on shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole kidney stones: results of a prospective multifactorial analysis controlled by computerized tomography. J Urol. 2015 Jun;193(6):2002-7. PubMed: PM25524240

39. Turna B, Tekin A, Yagmur I, Nazli O. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in infants less than 12-month old. Urolithiasis. 2015 Dec 30. PubMed: PM26719036

40. Yuruk E, Binbay M, Ozgor F, Sekerel L, Berberoglu Y, Muslumanoglu AY. Comparison of shockwave lithotripsy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of kidney stones in patients with a solitary kidney. J Endourol. 2015 Apr;29(4):463-7. PubMed: PM25268731

41. Adanur S, Ziypak T, Yilmaz AH, Kocakgol H, Aksoy M, Yapanoglu T, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy under sedoanalgesia for treatment of kidney stones in infants: a single-center experience with 102 cases. Int Urol Nephrol. 2014 Nov;46(11):2095-101. PubMed: PM25080207

42. Bas O, Bakirtas H, Sener NC, Ozturk U, Tuygun C, Goktug HN, et al. Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones. Urolithiasis. 2014 Apr;42(2):115-20. PubMed: PM24162954

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26099874http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26409427http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418567http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25938233http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25981235http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4426510http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25964839http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25524240http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26719036http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25268731http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25080207http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24162954


43. Cui Y, Cao W, Shen H, Xie J, Adams TS, Zhang Y, et al. Comparison of ESWL and ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy in management of ureteral stones. PLoS ONE [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2016 Aug 31];9(2):e87634, 2014. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3912003 PubMed: PM24498344

44. Elderwy AA, Kurkar A, Hussein A, Abozeid H, Hammodda HM, Ibraheim AF. Dissolution therapy versus shock wave lithotripsy for radiolucent renal stones in children: a prospective study. J Urol. 2014 May;191(5 Suppl):1491-5. PubMed: PM24679880

45. Joshi HN, Karmacharya RM, Shrestha R, Shrestha B, de Jong I, Shrestha RK. Outcomes of extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy in renal and ureteral calculi. Kathmandu Univ Med J. 2014 Jan;12(45):51-4. PubMed: PM25219995

46. Mokhless IA, Abdeldaeim HM, Saad A, Zahran AR. Retrograde intrarenal surgery monotherapy versus shock wave lithotripsy for stones 10 to 20 mm in preschool children: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol. 2014 May;191(5 Suppl):1496-9. PubMed: PM24679882

47. Pricop C, Maier A, Negru D, Malau O, Orsolya M, Radavoi D, et al. Extracorporeal shock waves lithotripsy versus retrograde ureteroscopy: is radiation exposure a criterion when we choose which modern treatment to apply for ureteric stones? Bosn J Basic Med Sci [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2016 Aug 31];14(4):254-8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4333967 PubMed: PM25428680

48. Scales CD, Jr., Lai JC, Dick AW, Hanley JM, van MJ, Setodji CM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treating patients with kidney stones. JAMA Surg. 2014 Jul;149(7):648-53. PubMed: PM24839228

49. Singh BP, Prakash J, Sankhwar SN, Dhakad U, Sankhwar PL, Goel A, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for intermediate size inferior pole calculi: a prospective assessment of objective and subjective outcomes. Urology. 2014 May;83(5):1016-22. PubMed: PM24560970

50. Cui H, Thomee E, Noble JG, Reynard JM, Turney BW. Efficacy of the lithotripsy in treating lower pole renal stones. Urolithiasis. 2013 Jun;41(3):231-4. PubMed: PM23456210

51. El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Awad BA, Elhalwagy SM, Elshal AM, Sheir KZ. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones in pediatric patients: a multivariate analysis model for estimating the stone-free probability. Int J Urol. 2013 Dec;20(12):1205-10. PubMed: PM23441845

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3912003http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24498344http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24679880http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25219995http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24679882http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4333967http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25428680http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24839228http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24560970http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23456210http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23441845


52. El-Nahas AR, Awad BA, El-Assmy AM, Abou El-Ghar ME, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR, et al. Are there long-term effects of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in paediatric patients? BJU Int. 2013 Apr;111(4):666-71. PubMed: PM22924860

53. Gul U, Yaycioglu O, Kuzgunbay B, Sariturk C, Kayra MV, Ozkardes H. Do patients on alpha-blockers for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia have better results after shockwave lithotripsy of urinary stones? J Endourol. 2013 May;27(5):612-6. PubMed: PM23237326

54. Habib EI, Morsi HA, Elsheemy MS, Aboulela W, Eissa MA. Effect of size and site on the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of proximal urinary stones in children. J Pediatr Urol. 2013 Jun;9(3):323-7. PubMed: PM22695376

55. Hadj-Moussa M, Brown JA. Effect of high shock number on acute complication development after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol [Internet]. 2013 Aug [cited 2016 Aug 31];27(8):1015-9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852342 PubMed: PM23537270

56. Hertzig LL, Iwaszko MR, Rangel LJ, Patterson DE, Gettman MT, Krambeck AE. Urolithiasis after ileal conduit urinary diversion: a comparison of minimally invasive therapies. J Urol. 2013 Jun;189(6):2152-7. PubMed: PM23228383

57. Huang Z, Zhao X, Zhang L, Zhong Z, Xu R, Zhang L. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for management of residual stones after ureterolithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a retrospective study. PLoS ONE [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2016 Aug 31];8(6):e67046, 2013. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3681774 PubMed: PM23785516

58. Ichiyanagi O, Nagaoka A, Izumi T, Kawamura Y, Tsukigi M, Ishii T, et al. Stone clearance after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with solitary pure calcium oxalate stones smaller than 1.0 cm in the proximal ureter, with special reference to monohydrate and dihydrate content. Scand J Urol. 2013 Apr;47(2):131-9. PubMed: PM22870910

59. Kruck S, Anastasiadis AG, Herrmann TR, Walcher U, Abdelhafez MF, Nicklas AP, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an alternative to retrograde intrarenal surgery and shockwave lithotripsy. World J Urol. 2013 Dec;31(6):1555-61. PubMed: PM23064981

60. Lee HY, Yang YH, Shen JT, Jang MY, Shih PM, Wu WJ, et al. Risk factors survey for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy-induced renal hematoma. J Endourol. 2013 Jun;27(6):763-7. PubMed: PM23272952

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22924860http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23237326http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22695376http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852342http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537270http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23228383http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3681774http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23785516http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22870910http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23064981http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23272952


61. Anglada-Curado FJ, Campos-Hernandez P, Carrasco-Valiente J, Anaya-Henares F, Carazo-Carazo JL, Avarez-Kindelan J, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi: improved efficacy using low frequency. Int J Urol. 2013 Feb;20(2):214-9. PubMed: PM22970896

62. Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HN, Nalbant I, Gucuk A, Imamoglu MA. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, shock wave lithotripsy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi 10-20 mm. Urol Int. 2013;91(3):345-9. PubMed: PM23816573

63. Panah A, Patel S, Bourdoumis A, Kachrilas S, Buchholz N, Masood J. Factors predicting success of emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eESWL) in ureteric calculi--a single centre experience from the United Kingdom (UK). Urolithiasis. 2013 Oct;41(5):437-41. PubMed: PM23748923

64. Park J, Shin DW, Chung JH, Lee SW. Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi: a prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes. World J Urol. 2013 Dec;31(6):1569-74. PubMed: PM23076422

65. Phipps S, Stephenson C, Tolley D. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy to distal ureteric stones: the transgluteal approach significantly increases stone-free rates. BJU Int. 2013 Jul;112(2):E129-E133. PubMed: PM23360696

66. Resorlu B, Unsal A, Ziypak T, Diri A, Atis G, Guven S, et al. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones. World J Urol. 2013 Dec;31(6):1581-6. PubMed: PM23179732

67. Yang TK, Yang HJ, Lee LM, Liao CH. Body mass index and buttock circumference are independent predictors of disintegration failure in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi. J Formos Med Assoc [Internet]. 2013 Jul [cited 2016 Aug 31];112(7):421-5. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929664612001659 PubMed: PM23927982

68. Badawy AA, Saleem MD, Abolyosr A, Aldahshoury M, Elbadry MS, Abdalla MA, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as first line treatment for urinary tract stones in children: outcome of 500 cases. Int Urol Nephrol. 2012 Jun;44(3):661-6. PubMed: PM22350835

69. Demirbas M, Samli M, Karalar M, Kose AC. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones: twelve years of experience with 2836 patients at a single center. Urol J [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2016 Sep 1];9(3):557-61. Available from: http://www.urologyjournal.org/index.php/uj/article/view/1592/ PubMed: PM22903477

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22970896http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23816573http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23748923http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23076422http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23360696http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23179732http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929664612001659http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23927982http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22350835http://www.urologyjournal.org/index.php/uj/article/view/1592/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22903477


70. El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10-20 mm. BJU Int. 2012 Sep;110(6):898-902. PubMed: PM22372915

71. Goktas C, Akca O, Horuz R, Gokhan O, Albayrak S, Sarica K. Does child's age affect interval to stone-free status after SWL? A critical analysis. Urology. 2012 May;79(5):1138-42. PubMed: PM22341601

72. Karatzas A, Gravas S, Tzortzis V, Aravantinos E, Zachos I, Kalogeras N, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy using a new modified lateral position for the treatment of renal stones in obese patients. Urol Res. 2012 Aug;40(4):355-9. PubMed: PM21847555

73. Khalil MM. Which is more important in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of solitary renal stones: stone location or stone burden? J Endourol. 2012 May;26(5):535-9. PubMed: PM22050487

74. Mandal S, Sankhwar SN, Singh MK, Kathpalia R, Singh V, Goel A, et al. Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for inferior caliceal calculus between children and adults: a retrospective analysis--why do results vary? Urology. 2012 Dec;80(6):1209-13. PubMed: PM23040726

75. Pirincci N, Gecit I, Bilici S, Taken K, Tanik S, Ceylan K. The effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones in children. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci [Internet]. 2012 Oct [cited 2016 Aug 31];16(10):1404-8. Available from: http://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/1404-1408.pdf PubMed: PM23104657

76. Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Nishimatsu H, Hirano Y, Matsuda S, et al. Renal haemorrhage risk after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: results from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination Database. BJU Int. 2012 Oct;110(8 Pt B):E332-E338. PubMed: PM22417119

77. Takahara K, Ibuki N, Inamoto T, Nomi H, Ubai T, Azuma H. Predictors of success for stone fragmentation and stone-free rate after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones. Urol J [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2016 Sep 1];9(3):549-52. Available from: http://www.urologyjournal.org/index.php/uj/article/view/1590/ PubMed: PM22903475

78. Zeng G, Jia J, Zhao Z, Wu W, Zhao Z, Zhong W. Treatment of renal stones in infants: comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Res. 2012 Oct;40(5):599-603. PubMed: PM22580634

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22372915http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22341601http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21847555http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22050487http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23040726http://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/1404-1408.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23104657http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22417119http://www.urologyjournal.org/index.php/uj/article/view/1590/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22903475http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22580634


Review Articles

79. Rodriguez D, Sacco DE. Minimally invasive surgical treatment for kidney stone disease. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2015 Jul;22(4):266-72. PubMed: PM26088070

80. Torricelli FC, Danilovic A, Vicentini FC, Marchini GS, Srougi M, Mazzucchi E. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of renal and ureteral stones. Rev Assoc Med Bras [Internet]. 2015 Jan [cited 2016 Sep 1];61(1):65-71. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ramb/v61n1/0104-4230-ramb-61-01-0065.pdf PubMed: PM25909212

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26088070http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ramb/v61n1/0104-4230-ramb-61-01-0065.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25909212

Research QuestionSKey FindingsMethodsResultsOverall Summary of FindingsReferences SummarizedHealth Technology Assessments No literature identified.Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysesRandomized Controlled TrialsGuidelines and Recommendations

Appendix Further information:Non-Randomized Studies

Documents

TITLE: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Kidney ... · Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Kidney Stones 3 One evidence-based guideline24 was identified regarding the