Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is shock wave lithotripsy efficient for the elderly stone formers? Results of a matched-pair analysis

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

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), in a comparative study based on the principles of matched-pair analysis. Over a period of 4 years, 2,311 patients were treated with SWL in a tertiary referral center. Patient and stone data were recorded in a prospective electronic database. Among these patients, 115 (4.97%) were older than 70 years of age and fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the study (Group A). For the purposes of the comparative analysis, Group A patients were matched for gender and stone parameters (side, location of stone, and diameter ±2 mm) with a control group of patients under the age of 70 (Group B). Following matching, the patients’ electronic medical records were reviewed, to identify SWL success rates at 3 months and McNemar’s test was used to compare the efficacy of SWL between the two groups. Matching was possible in all cases. The results indicate that there were no statistically significant differences in the mean number of SWL sessions or in the mean number of impulses per session between the two groups. The overall stone clearance rate achieved by SWL alone was 71.3% for Group A and 73.9% for group B. Discordant pairs were found in 37 cases (in 17 pairs only patients in Group A became stone-free, while in 20 pairs only patients in Group B became stone-free). By using McNemar’s test, the difference in stone clearance rates between the two groups was not found to be statistically significant (p = 0.742). A total of 22 patients (19.1%) in Group A and 17 patients (14.7%) in Group B underwent an adjuvant procedure to achieve stone clearance. McNemar’s test also revealed the absence of any statistically significant difference in SWL success rates between older and younger patients in the subgroups of patients presenting with either ureteric or renal stones (p = 0.727 and p = 0.571, respectively). In conclusion, SWL is still considered one of the first-line tools for geriatric patients suffering from urolithiasis, as increased age alone does not seem to adversely affect the efficacy of SWL.

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. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P et al (2007) Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 52:1610–1631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ng CF (2009) The effect of age on outcomes in patients undergoing treatment for renal stones. Curr Opin Urol 19:211–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gentle DL, Stoller ML, Bruce JE, Leslie SW (1997) Geriatric urolithiasis. J Urol 158:2221–2224

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Usui Y, Matsuzaki S, Matsushita K, Shima M (2003) Urolithiasis in geriatric patients. Tokai J Exp Clin Med 28:81–87

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kramolowsky EV, Quinlan SM, Loening SA (1987) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of urinary calculi in the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc 35:251–254

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sighinolfi MC, Micali S, Grande M, Mofferdin A, De Stefani S, Bianchi G (2008) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in an elderly population: how to prevent complications and make the treatment safe and effective. J Endourol 22:2223–2226

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Halachmi S, Meretyk S (2006) Shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones in elderly male patients. Aging Male 9:171–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ackermann DK, Fuhrimann R, Pfluger D, Studer UE, Zingg EJ (1994) Prognosis after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of radiopaque renal calculi: a multivariate analysis. Eur Urol 25:105–109

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Abdel-Khalek M, Sheir KZ, Mokhtar AA, Eraky I, Kenawy M, Bazeed M (2004) Prediction of success rate after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of renal stones—a multivariate analysis model. Scand J Urol Nephrol 38:161–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gomha MA, Sheir KZ, Showky S, Abdel-Khalek M, Mokhtar AA, Madbouly K (2004) Can we improve the prediction of stone-free status after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? A neural network or a statistical model? J Urol 172:175–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Delakas D, Karyotis I, Daskalopoulos G, Lianos E, Mavromanolakis E (2003) Independent predictors of failure of shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones employing a second-generation lithotripter. J Endourol 17:201–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, Asakura H, Miyajima A, Oya M, Ohigashi T, Murai M (2006) Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 176:1453–1456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ng CF, Wong A, Tolley D (2007) Is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy the preferred treatment option for elderly patients with urinary stone? A multivariate analysis of the effect of patient age on treatment outcome. BJU Int 100:392–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weinstein JR, Anderson S (2010) The aging kidney: physiological changes. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 17:302–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Argyropoulos AN, Tolley DA (2010) Evaluation of outcome following lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol 20:154–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Portis AJ, Yan Y, Pattaras JG, Andreoni C, Moore R, Clayman RV (2003) Matched pair analysis of shock wave lithotripsy effectiveness for comparison of lithotriptors. J Urol 169:58–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Stewart GD, Bariol SV, Moussa SA, Smith G, Tolley DA (2007) Matched pair analysis of ureteroscopy vs. shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteric calculi. Int J Clin Pract 61:784–788

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Youssef RF, El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, El-Tabey NA, El-Hefnawy AS, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR, El-Kappany HA, Sheir KZ (2009) Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi (<20 mm): a comparative matched-pair study. Urology 73:1184–1187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Argyropoulos AN, Tolley DA (2009) Ureteric stents compromise stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stones: results of a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 103:76–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Knapp PM, Kulb TB, Lingeman JE, Newman DM, Mertz JH, Mosbaugh PG, Steele RE (1988) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy-induced perirenal hematomas. J Urol 139:700–703

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dhar NB, Thornton J, Karafa MT, Streem SB (2004) A multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with subcapsular hematoma formation following electromagnetic shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 172:2271–2274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Newman LH, Saltzman B (1991) Identifying risk factors in development of clinically significant post-shock-wave lithotripsy subcapsular hematomas. Urology 38:35–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ikegaya H, Kato A, Kumano S, Tominaga T (2005) Correlation between age and the efficacy of ESWL. BJU Int 96:1145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Endourology and Stone Services, Department of Urology, Barts and The London NHS Trust, Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK

    Prodromos Philippou, Djelali Lamrani, Konstantinos Moraitis, Christian Bach, Junaid Masood & Noor Buchholz

Authors
  1. Prodromos Philippou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Djelali Lamrani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Konstantinos Moraitis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Bach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Junaid Masood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Noor Buchholz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noor Buchholz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Philippou, P., Lamrani, D., Moraitis, K. et al. Is shock wave lithotripsy efficient for the elderly stone formers? Results of a matched-pair analysis. Urol Res 40, 299–304 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0424-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0424-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation