Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus shock wave lithotripsy for high-density moderate-sized renal stones: A prospective randomized study

• Main Authors: Mohamed Gadelmoula, Ahmad A Elderwy, Islam F Abdelkawi, Ahmed M Moeen, Ghaleb Althamthami, Ahmed M Abdel-Moneim
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2019-01-01
• Series: Urology Annals
• Subjects: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; renal stone; shock wave lithotripsy; stone density
• Online Access: http://www.urologyannals.com/article.asp?issn=0974-7796;year=2019;volume=11;issue=4;spage=426;epage=431;aulast=Gadelmoula
• ISSN: 0974-7796; 0974-7834

Context: The management of renal stones of high density (>1000 Hounsfield units) on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT), and moderate sized (15-25 mm) is still debatable. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the high-density and moderate-sized renal stones regarding the stone-free rate (SFR), morbidity, and patients' quality of life. Settings and Design: This is a prospective randomized study. Patients and Methods: Eighty consecutive patients with renal stones, excluding those with lower calyceal stones, were randomized to receive either PCNL or SWL (40 in each arm). Patients were followed up by abdominal ultrasound and plain X-ray (NCCT if indicated) till clearance of stone. Outcomes, complications, costs, and SF-8 Health Survey scoring were recorded for each group. Statistical Analysis: We used Stata software, version 9.2 (Intercooled STATA®; StataCorp LP College Station, Texas, USA). Comparison of the two groups was made with regard to patient and stone criteria and the procedure details. Continuous variables were compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test with values shown as the median and interquartile range. Categorical variables were compared using the Pearson's Chi-square/Fisher's exact test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables independently associated with the stone clearance after two sessions of SWL. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The basic characteristics of both groups were comparable. After a single treatment session, the SFR was 80% and 27.5% for PCNL and SWL, respectively (P < 0.001). The overall 3-month SFR was 87.5% versus 90%, respectively (P = 0.723). The median number of the required maneuvers was 1 (range: 1–3) for PCNL versus 2 (range: 1–4) for SWL (P < 0.001). The complication rate was 10% and 7.5%, respectively (P = 0.692). The cost of SWL was significantly lower (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, a single stone was an independent predictor for stone clearance after two sessions of SWL (odds ratio: 7.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.13–46.62, P = 0.037). Conclusions: PCNL for the dense, and moderate-sized renal stone provides higher initial success and lower re-treatment rates compared with SWL with comparable outcome after 3 months of therapy. However, SWL is an alternative, especially for a single stone.