Comparing Efficacy of Extracorporial Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Patients of Renal Calculi with Ureteric Pre-stenting and without Ureteric Stent

Ammaar Yasir; Badar  Murtaza; Muhammad Farooq  Shahid; Ghufran  Ahmed; Muhammad Talha  Akhtar; Sayed Sohail  Kazmi

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-3.13509

Authors

Ammaar Yasir Department of Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Urology, Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Badar Murtaza Department of Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Urology, Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Muhammad Farooq Shahid Department of Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Urology, Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Ghufran Ahmed Department of Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Urology, Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Muhammad Talha Akhtar Department of Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Urology, Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Sayed Sohail Kazmi Department of Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-3.13509

Keywords:

Double-J stent, Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, Lower urinary tract symptoms, Renal Calculus

Abstract

Objective: To study effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on patients of renal calculi who have previous ureteric stents and between the patients who don't have previous ureteric stents.

Study Design: Quasi Experimental Study.

Place and Duration of Study: Department of Urology, Armed Forces Institute of Urology Rawalpindi, Pakistan from Jul 2023 to Jun 2024.

Methodology: A cohort of 150 patients presenting with solitary renal or ureteral calculi. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups: Group-A: (non-stented, n=75) and Group-B (stented, n=75). Both groups underwent Extracorporial Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL), and outcomes were evaluated Patients were prospectively followed for 3 months after stone clearance to assess for any recurrence.

Results: Group-A achieved a significantly higher complete stone clearance rate (84%) compared to Group B (72%) (p=0.04). Patients in Group-A also required fewer ESWL sessions (1.6 ± 0.7 vs. 2.1 ± 0.9, p=0.02). Minor complications were more frequent in the stented group (22.6% vs. 12%), though not statistically significant (p=0.11). No major complications were observed. Stone recurrence at 3 months was low and comparable (5.3% vs. 6.6%, p=0.71), indicating no significant difference in recurrence between the groups.

Conclusions: Non-stented patients showed significantly better stone clearance rates and required fewer Extracorporial Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) sessions compared to stented patients.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Khalili P, Jamali Z, Sadeghi T, Esmaeili-Nadimi A, Mohamadi M, Moghadam-Ahmadi A, et al. Risk factors of kidney stone disease: a cross-sectional study in the southeast of Iran. BMC Urol 2021; 21(1): 141.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00905-5

2. Bargagli M, Scoglio M, Howles SA, Fuster DG. Kidney stone disease: risk factors, pathophysiology and management. Nat Rev Nephrol 2025; 21(11): 794-808.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-025-00990-x

3. Hussain M, Somro AS, Abidi SS, Rizvi SAH. Stepping Stones In Prevention of Kidney Stone Disease In Pakistan. Pak J Kidney Dis 2024; 8(2): 2-10.

https://doi.org/10.53778/pjkd82259

4. Agarwal A, Singhania P, Patil A, Shah K. Is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy still the treatment of choice for renal and upper ureteric calculi: Our experience with 274 cases and its comparison with retrograde intrarenal surgery literature. MGM J Med Sci 2019; 6(3): 131-136.

https://doi.org/10.4103/MGMJ.MGMJ_10_20

5. Iqbal M, Saleem M, Hamid A, Rouf KA, Ahmad S. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy in renal and ureteric calculi: Role in resource poor developing countries in modern era. Int J Contemp Med Res 2020; 7: 18-23.

https://doi.org/10.21276/IJCMR.2020.7.2.45

6. Baum MA, Mandel M, Somers MJ. Understanding rare kidney stone diseases: a review. Am J Kidney Dis 2025; 86(2): 236-244.

https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2025.03.023

7. Lazarovich A, Haramaty R, Shvero A, Zilberman DE, Dotan ZA, Winkler H, et al. Primary Ureteroscopy without Pre-Stenting for Proximal Ureteral Stones—Is It Feasible? Life 2023; 13(10): 2019.

https://doi.org/10.3390/life13102019

8. Hussein I, Ippoliti S, Ng AB, Boaz RJ, Croghan S, Alexander C, et al. Ureteric stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy: a systematic review of surgeons’ motivations and patient experiences. BJU Int 2025; 137(2): 238.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.70063

9. Wang Y, Yang J, Amier Y, Yuan D, Xun Y, Yu X. Advancements in nanomedicine for the diagnosis and treatment of kidney stones. Int J Nanomed 2025: 1401-1423.

https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S504318

10. Pogula VR, Reddy S, Galeti EH, Rasool M. Stenting versus non-stenting before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteric stones: A prospective interventional study. Asian J Med Sci 2022; 13(3): 118-124.

https://doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v13i3.38918

11. Stamatelou K, Goldfarb DS. Epidemiology of kidney stones. Healthcare 2023; 11(3): 424.

https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11030424

12. Kang DH, Cho KS, Ham WS. Comparison of high, intermediate, and low frequency shock wave lithotripsy for urinary tract stone disease: systematic review and network meta analysis. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0158661.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158661

13. Ellison JS, Chu DI, Nelson CP, DeFoor WR, Ziemba J, Huang J, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs ureteroscopy for kidney stones in children. JAMA Netw Open 2025; 8(6): e2516749. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.16749

14. Elkoushy MA, Hassan JA, Morehouse DD. Factors determining stone free rate in shock wave lithotripsy using standard focus of Storz Modulith SLX F2 lithotripter. Urology 2011; 78: 759-763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.03.005

15. Abouelgreed TA, Elhelaly MA, El-Agamy ES, Ahmed R, Haggag YM, Abdelwadood M, et al. RETRACTED: Effect of preoperative ureteral stenting on the surgical outcomes of patients with 1-2 cm renal stones managed by retrograde intrarenal surgery using a ureteral access sheath. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2023; 95(4). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2023.12102

16. Falahatkar S, Khosropanah I, Vajary AD, et al. Is there a role for tamsulosin after shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of renal and ureteral calculi? J Endourol 2011; 25: 495-498.

https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0439

17. Zubair M, Zoha R. A chemical odyssey: Exploring renal stone diversity by age and sex in Punjab, Pakistan. J Biomed Res 2024; 38(5): 516. https://doi.org/10.7555/JBR.38.20240039

18. Reddy SJ, Reddy BS, Chawla A, de la Rosette JJ, Laguna P, Hegde P, et al. Outcomes and complications from a randomized controlled study comparing conventional stent placement versus no stent placement after ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculus< 1 cm. J Clin Med 2022; 11(23): 7023.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237023

19. Baba D, Dilek İE, Başaran E, Şenoğlu Y, Balık AY, Taşkıran AT, et al. Treatment Strategies for Kidney Stones Following ESWL Failure: A Prospective Comparative Study of Three Surgical Approaches. J Urol Surg 2025.

https://doi.org/10.4274/jus.galenos.2025.2024-9-10

20. Kulsoom, Ahmad S, Urwa, Khan IA, Awais, Pricope R, et al. Associations between clinical, biochemical, and nutritional factors in kidney stone formation and recurrence. Urolithiasis 2025; 53(1): 112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-025-01784-3