Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Single Ureteric Stone. Initial Data from Iraq


Background: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) became the first line in the treatment of ureteric stone after failure of conservative treatment because of its safety, simplicity and effectiveness. It is not invasive procedure and can be done on outpatient basis without anesthesia and with few complications which is most probably temporary and treatable. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficiency and safety of ESWL in treatment of ureteric stone in Iraq. Materials and Methods: A total of 112 Iraqi patients with ureteric stones were participated in this prospective observational study in which patients scheduled for ESWL treatment for a period of 6 months. Patients were divided into 2 groups: 1) Group 1: 52 patients with proximal ureteric stone; 2) Group 2: including 60 patients with distal ureteric stone. Preoperatively all patient underwent bowel preparation and were asked to fast for 8 hours before the procedure. Results: The age ranged between 22 and 55 with mean of 42 (SD = 5) years. Around 46% had proximal ureteric stone and the rest were in distal ureter. Around 44% needed one session and 40% needed two sessions to be stone-free respectively. In regards to associated symptoms, 74% had ureteric colic, 3% haematuria, 43% microhematuria and 12% UTI. Mild hydronephrosis was found in 90% of the cases and 30 reported had previous intervention. Success rate was 90%. Conclusions: ESWL is safe and effective in treatment of ureteric stone with few complications and must be regarded first choice after conservative treatment in a patient with uncomplicated ureteric stone.

Share and Cite:

Hussein, Y. , Abdulhussein, B. , Nawar, A. , Osman, M. and Daher, A. (2015) Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Single Ureteric Stone. Initial Data from Iraq. Open Journal of Urology, 5, 49-56. doi: 10.4236/oju.2015.55008.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Chaussy, C., Brendel, W. and Schmiedt, E. (1980) Extracorporeally Induced Destruction of Kidney Stones by Shock Waves. Lancet, 2, 1265-1268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(80)92335-1
[2] Chi-fai, N.G. (2009) Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy. Medical Bulletin, 14, 9-11.
[3] Ghafoor, M. (2002) Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Ureteric Stones: Experience from Tawam Hospital, United Arab Emirates. Annals of Saudi Medicine, 22, 18-21.
[4] Pricop, C., Maier, A., Negru, D., Malau, O., Orsolya, M., Radavoi, D. and Serban, D.R. (2014) Extracorporeal Shock Waves Lithotripsy versus Retrograde Ureteroscopy: Is Radiation Exposure a Criterion When We Choose Which Modern Treatment to Apply for Ureteric Stones? Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences, 14, 254-258.http://dx.doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2014.4.99
[5] Izamin, I., Aniza, I., Rizal, A.M. and Aljunid, S.M. (2009) Comparing Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Treatment of Proximal Ureteric Calculi: A Cost-Effective Study. Medical Journal of Malaysia, 64, 12-21.
[6] Grasso, M. and Green, D.A. (2015) Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy.
[7] Chiu, P.K.F., Chan, E.S.Y., Hou, S.M. and Ng, C.F. (2008) Cystinuria: A Rare Diagnosis That Should Not Be Missed. Hong Kong Medical Journal, 14, 399-401.
[8] Dhar, N.B., Thornton, J., Karafa, M.T. and Streem, S.B. (2004) A Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors Associated with Subcapsular Hematoma Formation Following Electromagnetic Shock Wave Lithotripsy. Journal of Urology, 172, 2271-2274.
[9] Janetschek, G., Frauscher, F., Knapp, R., Hofle, G., Peschel, R. and Bartsch, G. (1997) New Onset Hypertension after Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Age Related Incidence and Prediction by Intrarenal Resistive Index. Journal of Urology, 158, 346-351.
[10] Krambeck, A.E., Gettman, M.T., Rohlinger, A.L., Lohse, C.M., Patterson, D.E. and Segura, J.W. (2006) Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension Associated with Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Renal and Proximal Ureteral Stones at 19 Years of Followup. Journal of Urology, 175, 1742-1747.
[11] Al-Marhoon, M.S., Shareef, O., Al-Habsi, I.S., Al Balushi, A.S., Mathew, J. and Venkiteswaran, K.P. (2013) Extracorporeal Shock-Wave Lithotripsy Success Rate and Complications: Initial Experience at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital. Oman Medical Journal, 28, 255-259.
[12] Talati, J., Khan, F., Drago, H., Lall, E., Khan, N.Z., Talati, A., et al. (1997) Epidemiology of Urolithiasis in Pakistan. The Management of Lithiasis, Springer, 21-33.
[13] Tiselius, H.G. (2005) Removal of Ureteral Stones with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopic Procedure: What We Learn from the Literature in Terms of Results and Treatments Efforts? Urological Research, 33, 185-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-005-0462-x
[14] Hubner, W.A., Irby, P. and Stoller, M.L. (1993) Natural History and Current Concept in the Treatment of Small Ureteral Calculi. European Urology, 24, 172-176.
[15] Morse, R.M. and Resnick, M.L. (1991) Ureteral Calculi: Natural History and Treatment in an Era of Advanced Technology. The Journal of Urology, 145, 263-265.
[16] Robert, M., A’Ch, S., Lanfrey, P., Guiter, J. and Navratil, H. (1999) Piezoelectric Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Urinary Calculi: Comparative Study of Stone Depth in Kidney and Ureter Treatment. Journal of Endourology, 13, 699-703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/end.1999.13.699
[17] Singh, I., Gupta, N.P., Hemal, A.K., Dogra, P.N., Ansari, M.S., Seth, A., et al. (2001) Impact of Power Index, Hydroureteronephrosis, Stone Size, and Composition on the Efficacy of in Situ Boosted ESWL for Primary Proximal Ureteral Calculi. Urology, 58, 16-22.
[18] Tawfick, E.R. (2010) Treatment of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: Extra Corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy versus Semi-Rigid Ureteroscope with Lithoclast. International Archives of Medicine, 3, 3.
[19] Marguet, C.G., Springhart, W.P. and Auge, B.K. (2004) Advances in the Surgical Management of Nephrolithiasis. Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica, 56, 33-48.
[20] Gerber, R., Studer, U.E. and Danuser, H. (2005) Is Newer Always Better? A Comparative Study of 3 Lithotripter Generation. The Journal of Urology, 173, 2013-2016.
[21] Manzoor, S., Hashmi, A.H., Sohail, M.A., Mahar, F., Bhatti, S. and Khuhro, A.Q. (2013) Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. Ureterorenoscopic (URS) Manipulation in Proximal Ureteric Stone. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 23, 726-730.
[22] Augustin, H. (2007) Prediction of Stone-Free Rate after ESWL. European Urology, 52, 318-320.
[23] Jamshaid, A., Ather, M.H., Hussain, G. and Khawaja, K.B. (2008) Single Center, Single Operator Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Electrohydraulic and Electromagnetic Lithotripters in the Management of 10- to 20-mm Single Upper Urinary Tract Calculi. Urology, 72, 991-995.
[24] Schmitt, R., Becker, J.U. and Schwarz, A. (2011) Akutes Nierenversagen nach extrakorporaler Stoßwellenlithotripsie. Der Nephrologe, 6, 439-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11560-011-0533-7
[25] Inoue, H., Kamphausen, T., Bajanowski, T. and Trubner, K. (2011) Massive Retroperitoneal Haemorrhage after Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL). International Journal of Legal Medicine, 125, 75-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00414-010-0489-6
[26] Bergsdorf, T., Thuroff, S. and Chaussy, Ch. (2005) The Isolated Perfused Kidney: An in Vitro Test System for Evaluation of Renal Tissue Damage Induced by High-Energy Shockwaves Sources. Journal of Endourology, 19, 883-888. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/end.2005.19.883
[27] Maker, V. and Layke, J. (2004) Gastrointestinal Injury Secondary to Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Review of the Literature since Its Inception. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 198, 128-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2003.06.006
[28] Krambeck, A.E., Rule, A.D., Li, X., Bergstralh, E.J., Gettman, M.T. and Lieske, J.C. (2011) Shock Wave Lithotripsy Is Not Predictive of Hypertension among Community Stone Formers at Long-Term Followup. The Journal of Urology, 185, 164-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.033

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.