Role of Stone Heterogeneity Index in Determining Success of Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urinary Calculi
Background & aim: Various stone factors can affect the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). A novel factor called the stone heterogeneity index (SHI) may have an impact on stone free rates. The objective of this study was to assess the role of SHI in SWL outcomes.
Methods: Patients´ medical records were reviewed for the collection of data variables. They were subjected to SWL, using an electromagnetic lithotripter machine (Storz Modulith SLX-MX). Computation of mean stone density (mean value of the Hounsfield units) and SHI was accomplished by generating elliptical regions of interest on the CT scan images. Grouping was performed on the basis of stone free and failure outcomes. Relevant statistical tests were applied for continuous and categorical variables. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Overall, 385 subjects were included having a mean age of 38.4 ± 14.7 years. The cohort comprised 276 (71.7%) males and 109 (28.3%) female patients. A total of 234 (60.8%) patients were rendered successful (stone free after one session) while 151 (39.2%) of the patients were declared to have failed the SWL procedure. Stone length, stone density, and SHI values were 13.7 ± 7.6 mm, 935 ± 404, and 201 ± 107, respectively. The stone density, SHI, and stone length were significantly different between the two groups (p-values of 0.001, 0.02, and 0.04, respectively).
Conclusions: SHI can be a helpful CT scan-based parameter to assess stone fragility. It can help clinicians in the judicious selection of patients before implementing SWL procedure.
Relevance for patients: Non-contrast computed tomography based stone parameters have been found to be effective for predictions of outcomes. SHI can be a helping tool to better predict shock wave lithotripsy success rates when treating the renal stones.
[1] Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E. Extracorporeally Induced Destruction of Kidney Stones by Shock Waves. Lancet 1980;2:1265-8.
[2] Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016;69:475-82.
[3] Iqbal N, Malik Y, Nadeem U, Khalid M, Pirzada A, Majeed M, et al. Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for the Management of Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Single Center Experience. Turk J Urol 2018;44:221-7.
[4] Yamashita S, Kohjimoto Y, Iwahashi Y, Iguchi T, Nishizawa S, Kikkawa K, et al. Noncontrast Computed Tomography Parameters for Predicting Shock Wave Lithotripsy Outcome in Upper Urinary Tract Stone Cases. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:9253952.
[5] Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, Kuo R, Preminger GM, Nadler RB, et al. Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole Caliceal Calculi 1 cm or Less. J Urol 2005;173:2005-9.
[6] Oberlin DT, Flum AS, Bachrach L, Matulewicz RS, Flury SC. Contemporary Surgical Trends in the Management of Upper Tract Calculi. J Urol 2015;193:880-4.
[7] Patel T, Kozakowski K, Hruby G, Gupta M. Skin to Stone Distance is an Independent Predictor of Stone-Free Status Following Shockwave Lithotripsy. J Endourol 2009;23:1383-5.
[8] Choi JW, Song PH, Kim HT. Predictive Factors of the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Ureteral Stones. Korean J Urol 2012;53:424-30.
[9] Tanaka M, Yokota E, Toyonaga Y, Shimizu F, Ishii Y, Fujime M, et al. Stone Attenuation Value and CrossSectional Area on Computed Tomography Predict the Success of Shock Wave Lithotripsy. Korean J Urol 2013;54:454-59.
[10] Lim KH, Jung JH, KwonJH, Lee YS, Bae J, Cho MC, et al. Can Stone Density on Plain Radiography Predict the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Ureteral Stones? Korean J Urol 2015;56:56-62.
[11] Lee JY, Kim JH, Kang DH, Chung DY, Lee DH, Jung HD, et al. Stone Heterogeneity Index as the Standard Deviation of Hounsfield Units: A Novel Predictor for ShockWave Lithotripsy Outcomes in Ureter Calculi. Sci Rep 2016;6:23988.
[12] Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT Jr., Nakada SY. Shock Wave Lithotripsy Success Determined by Skin-To-Stone Distance on Computed Tomography. Urology 2005;66:941-4.
[13] Cakiroglu B, Eyyupoglu SE, Tas T, Balci MC, Hazar I, Aksoy SH, et al. Are Hounsfield Densities of Ureteral Stones a Predictive Factor for Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy? Int J Clin Exp Med 2014;7:1276-83.
[14] Bhojani N, Lingeman JE. Shockwave Lithotripsy-New Concepts and Optimizing Treatment Parameters. Urol Clin North Am 2013;40:59-66.
[15] Park SH, Kim KD, Moon YT, Myung SC, Kim TH, Chang IH, et al. Pilot Study of Low-Dose Non-enhanced Computed Tomography with Iterative Reconstruction for Diagnosis of Urinary Stones. Korean J Urol 2014;55:581-6.
[16] Jing Z, Zeng WG, Ning J, JiaWei Y, Yan G, Fang Y. Analysis of Urinary Calculi Composition by Infrared Spectroscopy: A Prospective Study of 625 Patients in Eastern China. Urol Res 2010;38:111-5.
[17] Dyer RB, Chen MY, Zagoria RJ. Abnormal Calcifications in the Urinary Tract. Radiographics 1998;18:1405-24.
[18] Williams JC Jr., Paterson RF, Kopecky KK, Lingeman JE, McAteer JA. High Resolution Detection of Internal Structure of Renal Calculi by Helical Computerized Tomography. J Urol 2002;167:322-6.
[19] Torricelli FC, Marchini GS, De S, Yamaçake KG, Mazzucchi E, Monga M. Predicting Urinary Stone Composition Based on Single-Energy Noncontrast Computed Tomography: The Challenge of Cystine. Urology 2014;83:1258-63.
[20] Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ, Pace KT. Evaluating the Importance of Mean Stone Density and Skin-to-Stone Distance in Predicting Successful Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Renal and Ureteric Calculi. Urol Res 2010;38:307-13.
[21] Nakasato T, Morita J, Ogawa Y. Evaluation of Hounsfield Units as a Predictive Factor for the Outcome Of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsyand Stone Composition. Urolithiasis 2015;43:69-75.
[22] Ouzaid I, Al-Qahtani S, Dominique S, Hupertan V, Fernandez P, Hermieu JF, et al. A 970 Hounseld Units (HU) Threshold of Kidney Stone Density on Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT) Improves Patients’ Selection for Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (ESWL): Evidence from a Prospective Study. BJU Int 2012;110:E438-42.
[23] El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O, Sheir KZ. A Prospective Multivariate Analysis of Factors Predicting Stone Disintegration by Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: The Value of High-Resolution Non-contrast Computed Tomography. Eur Urol 2007;51:1688-94.
[24] Yazici O, Tuncer M, Sahin C, Demirkol MK, Kafkasli A, Sarica K. Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Ureteral Stones: Evaluation of Patient and Stone Related Predictive Factors. Int Braz J Urol 2015;41:676-82.
[25] Xun Y, Li J, Geng Y, Liu Z, Yu X, Wang X, et al. Single Extracorporeal Shock-Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureter Stones: Can CT Texture Analysis Technique Help Predict the Therapeutic Effect? Eur J Radiol 2018;107:84-9.