Comparison of the results of shock wave lithotripsy with ultrasonic and fluoroscopic focus in pediatric age group; Fluoroscopic focusing how much is needed?

Aim: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a well-known technique used in the treatment of kidney stones since the early eighties. Forsuccessful SWL, accurate visualization of the shock waves is performed by ultrasound (US) or fluoroscope (FS) to fully focus theshock waves on the stone. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of US and FS methods used for focusing on stone in SWLtreatment of renal stones in pediatric patients on side effect and treatment success.Material and Methods: Between January 2008 and January 2018, 495 children under 16 years of age who were treated with SWLusing ultrasonic and fluoroscopic focusing were included in the study. Patients with fluoroscopic focus were classified as Group1 and patients with ultrasonic focus were classified as Group 2. Demographic data, SWL parameters and success rates of the twogroups were compared..Results: There was no significant difference between the demographic data, stone localization and stone sizes of the groups. SWLsuccess rate was 90.5% in group 1 and 92.3% in group 2. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms ofsuccess (p = 0.474). Complication rates were 0.2% (1 patient) and 0.4% (2 patients) in groups 1 and 2, respectively, and there wasno statistically significant difference (p = 0.495). With increasing clinical experience, ultrasonic focusing rates have increased andfluoroscopic focusing rates have decreased over the years.Conclusion: In the pediatric age group, we recommend the use of ultrasonic focusing with the additional advantage of avoidingradiation, avoiding the fluoroscopic focusing method using ionized radiation for SWL. We believe that randomized prospectivestudies will be more informative and support our study

PDF

___

1. Cohen TD, Ehreth J, King LR et al. Pediatric urolithiasis: medical and surgical management. Urology 1996;47:292-303.
2. Turney BW, Reynard JM, Noble JG, et al. Trends in urological stone disease. BJU international 2012;109:1082-7.
3. Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E. Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. Lancet (London, England) 1980;2:1265-8.
4. Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. European urology 2016;69:475-82.
5. Tiselius HG, Chaussy CG. Aspects on how extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy should be carried out in order to be maximally effective. Urological research 2012;40:433-46.
6. Madaan S, Joyce AD. Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Current opinion in urology. 2007;17:109-13.
7. Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM et al. Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. The Journal of urology. 1998;159:676-82.
8. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Panagopoulos G, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield units. Urology 2005;65:33-6.
9. Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT et al. Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology 2005;66:941-4.
10. Skuginna V, Nguyen DP, Seiler R, Kiss B, Thalmann GN, Roth B. Does Stepwise Voltage Ramping Protect the Kidney from Injury During Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy? Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial. European urology 2016;69:267-73.
11. Bohris C, Bayer T, Lechner C. Hit/Miss monitoring of ESWL by spectral Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound in medicine & biology 2003;29:705-12.
12. Van Besien J, Uvin P, Hermie I, et al. Ultrasonography Is Not Inferior to Fluoroscopy to Guide Extracorporeal Shock Waves during Treatment of Renal and Upper Ureteric Calculi: A Randomized Prospective Study. BioMed research international 2017;2017:7802672.
13. Sandilos P, Tsalafoutas I, Koutsokalis G et al. Radiation doses to patients from extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Health physics. 2006;90:583-7.
14. Okada A, Yasui T, Taguchi K et al. Impact of official technical training for urologists on the efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy. Urolithiasis. 2013;41:487-92.
15. Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology 2005;66:941-4.
16. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Panagopoulos G et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield units. Urology. 2005;65:33-6.