Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteric stones: supin or prone

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) has become the preferred first-line approach to most patients with symptomatic urolithiasis. The purpose of this study is to assess the ideal patient position during SWL for the treatment of distal ureter stones. A total of 342 patients included in this retrospective study. 148 (108 men, 40 women) patients were included in the first group and were treated in supine position. The remaining 194 (143 men, 51 women) patients were included to second group and were treated in prone position. This study designed retrospectively. The procedure was accepted as a success if the patient was stone free or had only clinically insignificant fragments (≤3 mm) for 3 months or more after the last SWL session. Before SWL, the mean is one area in the first group was 61.32 mm2 while the mean stone area in the second group was 59.04 mm2 (p = 0.208). Mean energy, Mean energy maximum and mean number of applied shock waves of the first group was 4.65, 3.19 and 3,960, respectively. The same parameters in second group were 4.26, 3.03 and 2,953, respectively. These results show that there are statistically significant differences between two groups with respect to mean energy, mean energy maximum and mean number of applied shock waves (p = 0.003, p = 0.010, p = 0.000, respectively). Success rate was 85.1% in group 1 and 72.7% in group 2 (p = 0.006). Our results suggest that supine position is effective and better than prone position for SWL in patients with distal ureteric stones.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E (1980) Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. Lancet 2:1265–1268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lingeman JE, Woods J, Toth PD et al (1989) The role of lithotripsy and its side effects. J Urol 141:793–797

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Holden D, Rao PN (1989) Ureteral stones: the results of primary in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 142:37–39

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Miller K, Fuchs G, Rassweiler J et al (1985) Treatment of ureteral stone disease: the role of ESWL and endourology. World J Urol 3:53–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Graff J, Pastor J, Funke PJ et al (1988) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones: a retrospective analysis of 417 cases. J Urol 139:513–516

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Egilmez T, Tekin MI, Gonen M et al (2007) Efficacy and safety of a new-generation shockwave lithotripsy machine in the treatment of single renal or ureteral stones: experience with 2670 patients. J Endourol 21:23–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jenkins AD, Gillenwater JY (1988) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the prone position. Treatment of stones in the distal ureter or anomalous kidney. J Urol 139:911–915

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ather MH (2001) Optimal minimally invasive treatment for ureteric stone. Braz J Urol 27:128–132

    Google Scholar 

  9. Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG et al (1997) Ureteral Stones Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 158:1915–1921

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tiselius HG, Ackermann D, Alken P et al (2001) Guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Urol 40:362–371

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Braun PM, Weber A, Michel MS et al (1998) Are auxiliary measures necessary in therapy of urolithiasis in children? J Endourol 12:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Göktaş S, Peşkircioğlu L, Tahmaz L et al (2000) Is there significance of the choice of prone versus supine position in the treatment of proximal ureter stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? Eur Urol 38:618–620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Guntekin E, Kukul E, Kayacan Z et al (1994) Morbidity associated with patient positioning in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of distal ureteral calculi. Int Urol Neph 26:13–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kurtz V, Müller-Sorg M, Federmann G (1999) Perforation of the small intestine after nephro-uretero-lithotripsy by ESWL—a rare complication. Chirung 70:306–307

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ahlawat RK, Bhandari M, Kumar A et al (1991) Treatment of ureteral calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy using the lithostar device. J Urol 146:737–741

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Amiel J, Touabi K, Peyrottes A et al (1990) Extracorporeal piezoelectric lithotripsy in the treatment of calculi of the ureter. Apropos of a series of 143 cases. Ann Urol (Paris) 24:135–139

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jenkins AD (1988) Dornier extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Urol Clin North Am 15:377–384

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Zomorrodi A, Elahian A, Ghorbani N et al (2007) Comparison of the effect of body position, prone or supine, on the result of extracorpreal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with stones in the proximal ureter. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 18(2):200–205

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ackaert KS, Dik P, Lock MT et al (1989) Treatment of distal ureteral stones in the horse riding position. J Urol 142:955–957

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Becht E, Moll V, Neisius D et al (1988) Treatment of prevesical ureteral calculi by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 139:916–918

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kose AC, Demirbas M (2004) The ‘modified prone position’: a new approach for treating pre-vesical stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. BJU Int 93:369–373

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Konya Education Hospital, Baskent University School of Medicine, 42060, Konya, Turkey

    Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu, Mustafa Burak Hoscan, Mehmet Ilteris Tekin, Tufan Cicek, Bulent Ozturk & Hakan Ozkardes

Authors
  1. Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mustafa Burak Hoscan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehmet Ilteris Tekin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tufan Cicek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bulent Ozturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hakan Ozkardes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Istanbulluoglu, M.O., Hoscan, M.B., Tekin, M.I. et al. Shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteric stones: supin or prone. Urol Res 39, 177–180 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0322-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0322-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation