Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Actual clinical practice pattern in SWL after COVID-19 era: a critical evaluation from different aspects

  • Research
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To outline the current status of Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) in stone treatment and the changes in the mode of application after the COVID-19 pandemic along with critical factors affecting the clinical practice of this particular procedure. This study targeted national and international urology experts who could share and contribute their experiences and perspectives on SWL practices after COVID-19 era. Approximately 650 urology specialists were invited to participate in the survey based study via Google Forms. Participation was voluntary and 398 of the invited participants completed the survey, yielding an acceptable response rate of approximately 61.23%. This survey highlights significant findings that shed light on the changes in clinical SWL applications. Nearly half of SWL procedures are performed by technicians or nurses instead of experienced urologists, potentially affecting the proper application and outcomes of the procedure. SWL seemed to be applied on a guideline (GL) indications based manner by the majority of the participants. Fluoroscopy remains still as the most commonly used method for radiological assessment, underscoring the necessity to teach sonography applications to younger urologists. Key reasons for the limited clinical application of SWL include the absence of lithotripters in the departments, high lithotriptor costs and significantly lower reimbursement rates compared to PNL and fURS modalities. Finally, an increase in SWL utilization rates has been observed post-COVID-19, highlighting its certain advantages realized during this period. These findings provide important insights into the role of SWL in stone treatment and the main factors influencing its clinical application practices. Although the popularity of SWL in the management of urinary stones is being stated to decline particularly in the last two decades, data obtained in this survey emphasized well that it is still a viable option especially for stones smaller than 15 mm. Our findings highlight the enduring relevance of SWL in contemporary stone therapy protocols in the context of COVID-19, where outpatient, non-invasive procedures are preferred. In addition to the consideration of certain factors affecting the rate of its application in clinical practice, to achieve high success rates with minimal complications in SWL, strategic patient selection and adherence to procedure guidelines seem to be crucial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Schmiedt E, Chaussy C (1984) Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) of kidney and ureteric stones. Int Urol Nephrol 16(4):273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02081861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Türk C, Neisius AA, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos KTA, Donaldson JF, Grivas N (2018) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. Europ Assoc Urol 32:158

    Google Scholar 

  3. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline. PART II J Urol 196(4):1161–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.091

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lantz AG, McKay J, Ordon M, Pace KT, Monga M, Honey RJ (2016) Shockwave lithotripsy practice pattern variations among and between american and canadian urologists in support of guidelines. J Endourol 30(8):918–922. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yildirim K, Olcucu MT, Colak ME (2018) Trends in the treatment of urinary stone disease in Turkey. PeerJ 6:e5390. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5390

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ates F, Zor M, Yılmaz O et al (2016) Management behaviors of the urology practitioners to the small lower calyceal stones: the results of a web-based survey. Urolithiasis 44(3):277–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0825-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Proietti S, Somani BK, Pietropaolo A et al (2018) Italian endourological panorama: results from a national survey. Central European J Urol 71(2):190–195. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2018.1623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sharma NL, Alexander CE, Grout E, Turney BW (2017) Shock-wave lithotripsy: variance within UK practice. Urolithiasis 45(2):193–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0886-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Li K, Lin T, Zhang CE, al, (2013) Optimal frequency of shock wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Urol 190(4):1260–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.075

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Semins MJ, Trock BJ, Matlaga BR (2008) The effect of shock wave rate on the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy: a meta-analysis. J Urol 179(1):194–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koo V, Beattie I, Young M (2010) Improved cost-effectiveness and efficiency with a slower shockwave delivery rate. BJU Int 105(5):692–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08919.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pishchalnikov YA, Neucks JS, VonDerHaar RJ, Pishchalnikova IV, Williams JC Jr, McAteer JA (2006) Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shock wave energy. J Urol 176(6 Pt 1):2706–2710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.149

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Jain A, Shah TK (2007) Effect of air bubbles in the coupling medium on efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 51(6):1680–1687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kamel M, Salem EA, Maarouf A, Abdalla M, Ragab A, Shahin AM (2015) Supine transgluteal vs prone position in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of distal ureteric stones. Urology 85(1):51–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Galli R, Sighinolfi MC, Micali S, Martorana E, Rosa M, Mofferdin A, Bianchi G (2017) Advantages of the supine transgluteal approach for distal ureteral stone extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: outcomes based on CT characteristics. Minerva Urol E Nefrol Italian J Urol Nephrol 69(2):189–194. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02741-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Choo MS, Han JH, Kim JK, Shin TY, Lee WK, Lee SK, Lee SH (2018) Author correction to: the transgluteal approach to shockwave lithotripsy to treat distal ureter stones: a prospective, randomized, and multicenter study. World J Urol 36(8):1307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2289-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

E.E. and K.S. wrote the main manuscript text and G.S. and C.S. prepared Fig. 14 and statistics. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erhan Erdoğan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Erdoğan, E., Sarıca, G., Şahin, C. et al. Actual clinical practice pattern in SWL after COVID-19 era: a critical evaluation from different aspects. Urolithiasis 52, 155 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01650-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01650-8

Keywords