Background: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) was first introduced in paediatric population in 1986. Given the more frequent recurrence in children, compared to adults, urinary stones treatments should require minimal invasive treatment methods. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the profile of the young patient with lithiasis who can benefit from ESWL, analysing the experience of 2 clinical departments. Materials and Methods: We have retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 54 children who underwent ESWL for urolithiasis. ESWL success rate was defined as stone-free status or the presence of clinically insignificant residual fragments. Data were analysed using the STATA 14.2. Results: In our study, the incidence of renal-ureteral calculi is significantly higher in girls (68.5%), compared to boys (31.5%). In total, 83.3% of patients showed a favourable outcome after treatment and the remaining 16.7% showed minimal complications. The presence of complications and remaining calculi was correlated to children age. The overall stone free rate was 88.9%. For calculus of 8.5 mm, only one ESWL session is recommended. Conclusions: The high percentage of cases with favourable outcome indicate that ESWL treatment is effective, considering the minimal cost, minimal invasiveness, repeatability and no need for general anaesthesia.

Keywords:
Child, Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, Kidney, Stone, Ureter
1.
McAdams S, Shukla AR. Pediatric extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: predicting successful outcomes.
Indian J Urol
. 2010 Oct;26(4):544–8.
2.
Pirincci N, Gecit I, Bilici S, Taken K, Tanik S, Ceylan K. The effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones in children.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci
. 2012 Oct;16(10):1404–8.
3.
Landau EH, Shenfeld OZ, Pode D, Shapiro A, Meretyk S, Katz G, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in prepubertal children: 22-year experience at a single institution with a single lithotriptor.
J Urol
. 2009 Oct;182(4 suppl):1835–9.
4.
Landau EH, Gofrit ON, Shapiro A, Meretyk S, Katz G, Shenfeld OZ, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is highly effective for ureteral calculi in children.
J Urol
. 2001 Jun;165(6 Pt 2):2316–9.
5.
Tan AH, Al-Omar M, Watterson JD, Nott L, Denstedt JD, Razvi H. Results of shockwave lithotripsy for pediatric urolithiasis.
J Endourol
. 2004 Aug;18(6):527–30.
6.
Pricop C, Maier A, Negru D, Malau O, Orsolya M, Radavoi D, et al. Extracorporeal shock waves lithotripsy versus retrograde ureteroscopy: is radiation exposure a criterion when we choose which modern treatment to apply for ureteric stones?
Bosn J Basic Med Sci
. 2014 Oct;14(4):254–8.
7.
Pricop C, Negru I, Ciuta C, Jinga V, Iliesiu A, Checherita IA, et al. The efficacy of piroxicam/lidocaine/cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride topical gel in the pain management during extracorporeal shock wave -lithotripsy (ESWL).
Farmacia
. 2016;64:757–62.
8.
Akin Y, Yucel S. Long-term effects of pediatric extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy on renal function.
Res Rep Urol
. 2014 Apr;6:21–5.
9.
Thomson JM, Glocer J, Abbott C, Maling TM, Mark S. Computed tomography versus intravenous urography in diagnosis of acute flank pain from urolithiasis: a randomized study comparing imaging costs and radiation dose.
Australas Radiol
. 2001 Aug;45(3):291–7.
10.
Cody DD, Moxley DM, Krugh KT, O’Daniel JC, Wagner LK, Eftekhari F. Strategies for formulating appropriate MDCT techniques when imaging the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in pediatric patients.
AJR Am J Roentgenol
. 2004 Apr;182(4):849–59.
11.
Leppert A, Nadalin S, Schirg E, Petersen C, Kardorff R, Galanski M, et al. Impact of magnetic resonance urography on preoperative diagnostic workup in children affected by hydronephrosis: should IVU be replaced?
J Pediatr Surg
. 2002 Oct;37(10):1441–5.
12.
Lahme S. Shockwave lithotripsy and endourological stone treatment in children.
Urol Res
. 2006 Apr;34(2):112–7.
13.
Smaldone MC, Docimo SG, Ost MC. Contemporary surgical management of pediatric urolithiasis.
Urol Clin North Am
. 2010 May;37(2):253–67.
14.
Thomas BG. Management of stones in childhood.
Curr Opin Urol
. 2010 Mar;20(2):159–62.
15.
Boiculese LV, Dimitriu G, Moscalu M.
Nearest neighbor classification with improved weighted dissimilarity measure
. Proc Ro Acad Series A. 2009;10(2):205–13.
16.
Bach C, Karaolides T, Buchholz N. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: what is new?
Arab J Urol
. 2012 Sep;10(3):289–95.
17.
Copelovitch L. Urolithiasis in children: medical approach.
Pediatr Clin North Am
. 2012 Aug;59(4):881–96.
18.
Jee JY, Kim SD, Cho WY. Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in pediatric and adolescent urolithiasis.
Korean J Urol
. 2013 Dec;54(12):865–9.
19.
Özgür BC, Irkilata L, Ekici M, Hoşcan MB, Sarici H, Yücetürk CN, et al. Pediatric extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: multi-institutional results.
Urologia
. 2016 May;83(2):83–6.
20.
Shouman AM, Ziada AM, Ghoneim IA, Morsi HA. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy for renal stones [{GT}]25 mm in children.
Urology
. 2009 Jul;74(1):109–11.
21.
Dursun I, Poyrazoglu HM, Dusunsel R, Gunduz Z, Gurgoze MK, Demirci D, et al. Pediatric urolithiasis: an 8-year experience of single centre.
Int Urol Nephrol
. 2008;40(1):3–9.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.