Clinical results of shock wave lithotripsy treatment in elderly patients with kidney stones: Results of 1433 patients

Abstract

Objective: In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SWL treatment in elderly patients with kidney stones. Materials and methods: Data from a total of 3024 patients who underwent SWL treatment for urinary tract stone disease in three centers of our university were evaluated retrospectively. A total of 1433 patients in the adult age group treated for single kidney stones were included in the study. The patients were divided into 3 groups (18-40, 41-64 and ≥ 65) years depending on their age. Demographic data, stone parameters, stone-free rate (SFR) and clinically insignificant residual fragment (CIRF) rate, number of SWL sessions and complication rate were analyzed according to the age groups. Results: The mean age of the patients was 47.38 ± 13.24 years. Stone size was significantly lower in the 18-40 years age group compared to other groups (p = 0.000) and the stones were mostly located on the right side in this age group (p = 0.007). There was no significant relationship between age groups and gender, stone localization, and number of SWL sessions. The overall SFR was 66.4%. Although the SFR was lower (61.4%) and the rate of multiple sessions (27.2%) was higher in ≥ 65 years group, there was no statistically significant difference between age groups regarding SFR, CIRF, need for additional sessions, and complication rates. Conclusions: Due to its similar clinical results, treatment of SWL should not be ignored as a treatment option in the geriatric patient group with kidney stones.

Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of urolithiasis in geriatric patients - differences, similarities and caveats in comparison to the general population

“…In the context of elderly patients, all studies underscored the effectiveness and safety of ESWL, noting no statistically significant differences in complications and SFR [66,[87][88][89][90]. However, while the three-month success rate in the general population remains comparable to URS and PCNL [91] in the geriatric population, it is notably lower [92].…”