OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the predictive value of CT-based radiomics in determining the success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment for ureteral stones larger than 10mm in adult patients.
METHODS: A total of 301 eligible patients (165/136 successful/unsuccessful) who underwent SWL were retrospectively evaluated and divided into a training cohort (n = 241) and a test cohort (n = 60) following an 8:2 ratio. Univariate analysis was performed to assess clinical characteristics for constructing a nomogram. Radiomics and conventional radiological characteristics of stones were evaluated. Following feature selection, radiomics and radiological models were constructed using logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), K nearest neighbor (KNN), and XGBoost. The models\' performance was compared using metrics such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), precision, recall, accuracy, and F1 score. Finally, a nomogram was created incorporating the best image model signature and clinical predictors.
RESULTS: The SVM-based radiomics model showed superior predictive performance in both training and test cohorts (AUC: 0.956, 0.891, respectively). The nomogram, which combined SVM-based radiomics signature with proximal ureter diameter (PUD), demonstrated further improved predictive performance in the test cohort (AUC: 0.891 vs. 0.939, P = 0.166).
CONCLUSIONS: Integration of CT-derived radiomics and PUD showed excellent ability to predict SWL treatment success in patients with ureteral stones larger than 10mm, providing a promising approach for clinical decision-making.

Finding reliable and easy-to-obtain predictors of severe infectious complications after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a major clinical need, particular in symptom-free hydronephrosis. Therefore, we aim to prospectively investigate the predictive value of Hounsfield units (HU) in renal pelvis urine for the risk of severe infectious complications in patients with ureteral stones and symptom-free hydronephrosis after SWL. This multi-center prospective study was conducted from June 2020 to December 2023. The HU of renal pelvis urine was measured by non-enhanced computed tomography. The severe infectious complications included systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, and septic shock. Binary logistic regression models assessed the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Finally, 1,436 patients with ureteral stones were enrolled in this study. 8.9% (128/1,436) of patients experienced severe infectious complications after SWL treatment. After adjusting confounding variables, compared with the patients in the lowest renal pelvis urine density quartile, the OR (95% CI) for the highest quartile was 32.36 (13.32, 78.60). There was a positive linear association between the HU value of renal pelvis urine and the risk of severe infectious complications after SWL (P for trend < 0.001). Furthermore, this association was also observed stratified by age, gender, BMI, stone size, stone location and hydronephrosis grade (all P for interaction > 0.05). Additionally, the nonlinear association employed by restricted cubic splines is not statistically significant (nonlinear P = 0.256). The AUROC and 95%CI of renal pelvis urine density were 0.895 (0.862 to 0.927, P value < 0.001). The cut-off value was 12.0 HU with 78.59% sensitivity and 85.94% specificity. This multi-center prospective study demonstrated a positive linear association between HU in renal pelvis urine and the risk of severe infectious complications in patients with ureteral stones and symptom-free hydronephrosis after SWL, regardless of age, gender, BMI, stone size, stone location, and hydronephrosis grade. These findings might be helpful in the SWL treatment decision-making process.

The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence or degree of hydronephrosis (HN) affects the stone disintegration efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). A comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to retrieve relevant studies. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for comparisons of outcomes of interest. In total, seven comparative studies with 2033 patients were included. Overall results indicated no significant difference in stone-free rate (SFR) and retreatment rate between two groups. Subgroup analysis further revealed: (1) compared with moderate or severe HN, non-HN SWL brought significantly lower retreatment rate (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.52-0.87, P = 0.002 and RR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.40-0.76, P = 0.0003, respectively) and shorter clearance time (MD - 3.80, 95%CI - 5.81 to - 1.79, P = 0.0002 and MD - 5.93, 95%CI - 10.29 to - 1.57, P = 0.008, respectively); (2) SWLs performed without stone-induced HN or with artificial HN were associated with significantly higher SFR (RR 1.11, 95%CI 1.04-1.18, P = 0.001 and RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.87-0.99, P = 0.02, respectively); (3) non-HN SWL brought significantly higher SFR than HN group when treating proximal ureteral stones (RR 1.14, 95%CI 1.04-1.24, P = 0.005). Generally, SWLs performed with HN were shown to offer similar stone disintegration efficacy to those without HN. However, it seemed preferable to perform SWL: (1) without severe to moderate HN or stone-induced HN; (2) with artificial HN; (3) without HN when treating proximal ureteral stones.

BACKGROUND: No wound to the patients is the pursuit of surgeons. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) are minimally invasive modalities for treating horseshoe kidney (HSK) stone <2 cm. We aimed to review the outcomes and complications of comparing SWL and URS in HSK stone.
METHODS: The literature was reviewed in the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library up to March 1, 2018. Only 4 articles were available for analysis. Inclusion criteria were all English language articles reporting on the comparison between SWL and URS.
RESULTS: URS tends to be performed in a relatively heavier stone burden. The higher initial stone-free rate and success rate were demonstrated for URS than for SWL (p < 0.00001, p = 0.02, respectively). The less retreatment rate was found in URS than SWL (p = 0.04). There was no difference in minor complications in the 2 groups (p = 0.57). Renal colic episodes were more likely to be observed in the SWL group (p = 0.02). There were no major complications found in the review.
CONCLUSIONS: For a stone <2 cm in HSK, both SWL and URS are safe treatment modalities. URS alone is a more feasible and sufficient option for stone in HSK <2 cm than SWL with possibilities of a second session.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of new percutaneous technique (\"ultra-mini PCNL\", UMP), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) on the treatment of 1-2 cm lower pole kidney stones, and to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each method.
METHODS: This prospective study was based on data collected from the files of patients between March 2015 and March 2017. This study recruited a total of 180 patients with single radio-opaque lower caliceal calculi of 1-2 cm. All patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: group A was treated with UMP, group B was treated with FURS by using holmium laser and group C was treated with SWL by using the electromagnetic lithotripter. The average age, sex, size of the stone, the time of operation, the rate of no stone, the time of hospitalization, the rate of retreatment, the cost and the complications of the 3 groups were compared. The success of the operation was defined as no residual stone or < 0.3 cm on computed tomography at 3 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: The stone burdens of the groups were equivalent. The re-treatment rate in group C was significantly higher than that in group A and B (30 vs. 1.6%, 5%). The average operating time in group B (93.35 ± 21.64 min) was statistically significantly longer than that in group A and C (68.58 ± 15.82 min, 46.33 ± 5.81 min). Although the time of hospitalization of group A (5.32 ± 1.20 day) was longer than that of group B (3.22 ± 0.52 day) and C (1.08 ± 0.28 day; p < 0.05). The stone-free rate (SFR) in UMP, FURS, SWL were 98, 92, and 73% respectively; the highest SFR was in the UMP group (p < 0.05). The complication rates were evaluated by using the Clavien grading system, which were determined to be 16.67% in UMP, 6.67% in SWL and 8.33% in FURS. In particular, the complications of GI and GII were more common in group A (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: UMP, FURS, and SWL are all safe and effective in the treatment of 1-2 cm lower pole kidney stones. UMP and FURS had a better SFR than SWL, but the time of hospitalization in UMP group was longer and there were more complications in the UMP group. In addition, the operation time of FURS is longer as compared to UMP and SWL, and there is a higher rate of postoperative fever. The invasiveness and cost of SWL were lower than that of UMP and FURS, but the re-treatment rate was higher.

The importance of assessing perioperative urine/stone cultures and providing appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis prior to shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) or endoscopic intervention cannot be minimized. Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common complication relating to stone intervention. Adequate assessment of culture data and adherence to appropriate guidelines may prevent the development of UTI and the potential for post-intervention urosepsis. This review outlines the current evidence for prophylaxis in the prevention of UTI and urosepsis, as well as the interpretation of stone culture data to provide an evidence-based approach for the judicious use of antibiotics in urologic stone practice.