Skip to main content
Log in

Treatment selection for urolithiasis: percutaneous nephrolithomy, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, and active monitoring

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Urolithiasis is a significant worldwide source of morbidity, constituting a common urological disease that affects between 10 and 15% of the world population. Recent technological and surgical advances have replaced the need for open surgery with less invasive procedures. The factors which determine the indications for percutaneous nephrolithotomy include stone factors (stone size, stone composition, and stone location), patient factors (habitus and renal anomalies), and failure of other treatment modalities (ESWL and flexible ureteroscopy). The accepted indications for PCNL are stones larger than 20 mm2, staghorn and partial staghorn calculi, and stones in patients with chronic kidney disease. The contraindications for PCNL include pregnancy, bleeding disorders, and uncontrolled urinary tract infections. Flexible ureteroscopy can be one of the options for lower pole stones between 1.5 and 2 cm in size. This option should be exercised in cases of difficult lower polar anatomy and ESWL-resistant stones. Flexible ureteroscopy can also be an option for stones located in the diverticular neck or a diverticulum. ESWL is the treatment to be discussed as a option in all patient with renal stones (excluding lower polar stones) between size 10 and 20 mm. In addition, in lower polar stones of size between 10 and 20 mm if the anatomy is favourable, ESWL is the option. In proximal ureteral stones, ESWL should be considered as a option with flexible ureteroscopy Active monitoring has a limited role and can be employed in post-intervention (PCNL or ESWL) residual stones, in addition, asymptomatic patients with no evidence of infection and fragments less than 4 mm can be monitored actively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al (2016) Nephrolithiasis guideline panel. Surgical management guidelines. American urological association/endourology society guidelines

  2. Turk I, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Straub M, Traxer O (2010) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis

  3. Moore CL, Daniels B, Singh D, Luty S et al (2016) Ureteral stones: implementation of a reduced-dose CT protocol in patients in the emergency department with moderate to high likelihood of calculi on the basis of STONE score. Radiology 280:743–751

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Worster A, Preyra I, Weaver B et al (2002) The accuracy of non contrast helical computed tomography versus intravenous pyelography in the diagnosis of suspected acute urolithiasis: a metaanalysis. Ann Emerg Med 40(3):280–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morcos SK, Thomsen HS, Webb JA (2001) Contrast media safety committee of the European society of urogenital radiology prevention of generalized reactions to contrast media: A consensus report and guidelines. Eur Radiol 11(9):1720–1728

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Thomsen HS, Morcos SK (2003) Contrast media and the kidney: European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines. Br J Radiol 76(908):513–518

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aga P (2010) R Bansal Is intravenous urogram no longer an imaging of choice for percutaneousnephrolithotomy. Indian J Urol 26:303–304

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C et al (2011) Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 108(6):896–899

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kurien A, Ganpule A, Muthu V et al (2009) Measuring stone surface area from a radiographic image is accurate and reproducible with the help of an imaging program. J Endourol 23(1):17–19. doi:10.1089/end.2008.0341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tiselius HG, Ackermann D, Alken P et al (2001) Working party on lithiasis, European association of urology. Eur Urol 40(4):362–371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Teichman JM, Long RD, Hulbert JC (1995) Long term renal fate and prognosis after staghorn calculus management. J Urol 153:1403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mertyk S, Gofrit ON, Gafni O et al (1997) Completestaghorn calculi; Randomized prospective comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy and combined with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 157:780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B (2005) Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis. J Urol 173:469–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV et al (2001) A prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostlithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis: initial results. J Urol 166:2072–2080

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Turna B, Raza A, Moussa S, Smith G, Tolley DA (2007) Management of calyceal diverticular stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy;long term outcome. BJU Int 100:151–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wen CC, Nakada SY (2007) Treatment selection outcomes: renal calculi. Urol Clin N Am 34(3), 409–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shah K, Kurien A, Mishra S, Ganpule A, Muthu V, Sabnis RB, Desai M (2010) Predicting effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy by stone attenuation value. J Endourol 24(7):1169–1173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. El Nahas AR, El Assmy AM, Manour O, Sheir KZ (2007) A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high resolution non contrast computed tomography. Eur Urol 51(6):1688–1693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Doshi A, Ganpule AP, Jagtap J, Desai MR. Micropercutaneousnephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 2013112(3):355–361

  20. Sheir K, Madbouly K, Elsobsky E (2003) Prospective randomized comparative study of the effectiveness and safety of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic extracorporeal shockwave lithotriptors. J Urol 170:389–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K et al (2016) EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):468–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Skolarikos A, Laguna MP, Alivizatos G et al (2010) The role for active monitoring in urinary stones: a systematic review. J Endourol 24(6):923–930

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author contributions

MRD: Protocol/project development and manuscript writing. YS: Manuscript writing and editing. NPB: Manuscript writing/editing. AF: Manuscript writing/editing. TM: Manuscript writing/editing. BRM: Manuscript writing/editing. NM: Manuscript writing, editing. DB: Manuscript writing/editing. MA: Manuscript writing/editing. AG: Project development, manuscript writing, and editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahesh Desai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical standards

All ethical standards are complied.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Desai, M., Sun, Y., Buchholz, N. et al. Treatment selection for urolithiasis: percutaneous nephrolithomy, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, and active monitoring. World J Urol 35, 1395–1399 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2030-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2030-8

Keywords

Navigation