Declining Effectiveness of ESWL: A 7-Year Retrospective Study

What is it about?

The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in stone clearance compared to existing knowledge and understand reasons for its performance at a high-volume stone center. A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who received ESWL treatment for renal or proximal ureteric stones between January 2012 and January 2019. A total of 1930 patients met inclusion criteria, with 57% undergoing left-sided ESWL and 43% undergoing right-sided ESWL. The stone clearance rate was 68.1%, with 31.9% requiring a further ipsilateral stone procedure within 3 years. The study found that stone size and location were statistically significant factors in stone clearance rate, with smaller stones and those in the lower calyces having higher clearance rates. The study concluded that ESWL remains a safe and effective treatment for renal stones, but its use has decreased in recent years due to advances in endoscopic technology. [Some of the content on this page has been created by AI]

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This research is important because it evaluates the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in stone clearance compared to existing knowledge and understands the reasons for its performance at a high-volume stone center over a 7-year period. The study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of ESWL as a treatment option for renal or proximal ureteric stones. Key Takeaways: 1. A total of 1930 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. 2. Fifty-seven percent underwent left-sided ESWL, compared to 43% on the right. 3. For any size or location, stone clearance rate was 68.1%. 4. 31.9% required a further ipsilateral stone procedure within 3 years. 5. The incidence of renal stone disease is increasing globally, leading to a rising economic burden. 6. ESWL is a safe, efficacious, and affordable treatment option for renal stones. 7. Despite the decline in ESWL provision, it remains significantly cheaper compared to other treatment options.