Does success rate decrease in the presence of re­ nal anomalies in the treatment of shockwave lithotripsy with second or third generation lithotripter

Introduction & Objective: To compare the success rates of second and third generation lithotripter in patient with renal anomalies for urolithiasis.
Methods: A total of 1664 patients who underwent SWL with Lithostar and 840 patients who underwent SWL with Lithoskop in our department were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided as patients with renal anomaly and patients without renal anomaly. Success was determined as stone free and failure was determined as residual stone. The data were retrospectively an­ analyzed to determine change in success rates in patients with renal anomalies.

Results: Renal anomaly was present in 28 of 1664 (1.6%) pa­ tients for patients who underwent second generation lithotripter and 24 of 840 (2.8%) patients for third generation lithotripter. The total success rates of both lithotripters were determined as 82% and 69%, respectively (p < 0.001). Success rates were de­ creased to 64.2% and 58.3% (p < 0.001), for both lithotripters,  respectively in patients with renal anomalies. The decrease rates were 21.7% for second generation lithotripter and 15.5% for third generation litlıotripter. The decrease in success rate was more significant in second geııeration lithotripter (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: ESWL is feasible and effective for treatment of urolithiasis in patients with renaJ anomalies. However, presence of renal anomaly is an important factor leading to a decrease in success rate. This decrease rate was found to be significantly higher in second generation lithotripter.