Üriner Sistem Taş Hastalığında Kadim Bir Dost: ESWL
Özet
Üriner sistem taş hastalığı, sağlık sistemlerine getirdiği küresel ekonomik yükle önemli bir sorun olup tedavisinde şok dalgası litotripsi (ESWL) yöntemi non-invaziv ve etkili bir seçenek olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bu yöntem, vücut dışında oluşturulan akustik şok dalgalarının dokulardan geçerek taşı küçük parçalara ayırması prensibiyle çalışır. Avrupa Üroloji Birliği (EAU) kılavuzuna göre ESWL endikasyonları taşın boyutuna ve yerleşimine (üreter, böbrek, mesane) bağlı olarak değişirken; hamilelik, kanama bozuklukları, kontrol edilemeyen enfeksiyonlar ve ciddi obezite gibi durumlar kesin kontrendikasyon teşkil eder. Tedavinin başarısı; taşın yoğunluğu (1000 HU üzeri dirençlidir), cilt-taş mesafesi, şok dalgası frekansı (1.0-1.5 Hz) ve doğru akustik bağlantı gibi parametrelerin optimize edilmesine bağlıdır. Hemofili, kalp pili ve transplante böbrek gibi özel hasta gruplarında da uygun önlemlerle uygulanabilen ESWL, genel olarak düşük komplikasyon ve yüksek taşsızlık oranları sunmaktadır. En korkulan akut komplikasyon renal hematom iken, uzun dönemde böbrek fonksiyonları üzerinde kalıcı olumsuz bir etkisi gösterilmemiştir.
Urinary system stone disease represents a significant health issue that increases the global economic burden on healthcare systems, and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) stands out as a non-invasive and effective modality in its treatment. This method operates on the principle of breaking stones into small fragments using externally generated acoustic shock waves that pass through tissues. According to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines, ESWL indications vary based on stone size and location (ureteral, renal, bladder), while conditions such as pregnancy, bleeding disorders, uncontrolled infections, and severe obesity constitute strict contraindications. The success of the treatment depends on optimizing parameters such as stone density (stones over 1000 HU are resistant), skin-to-stone distance, shock wave frequency (1.0-1.5 Hz), and proper acoustic coupling. ESWL can also be performed in special patient groups including hemophilia, pacemakers, and transplanted kidneys under appropriate precautions, offering low complication and high stone-free rates overall. While renal hematoma is the most feared acute complication, no long-term negative impact on renal function has been demonstrated.
Referanslar
Curhan GC. Epidemiology of stone disease. Urologic Clinics of North America. 2007;34(3):287-293. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2007.04.003.
Hughes T, Ho HC, Pietropaolo A, et al. Guideline of guidelines for kidney and bladder stones. Turkish Journal of Urology. 2020;46(Supp. 1):S104-S112. doi: 10.5152/tud.2020.20315.
Pradere B, Doizi S, Proietti S, et al. Evaluation of Guidelines for Surgical Management of Urolithiasis. Journal of Urology. 2018;199(5):1267-1271. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.111.
Chaussy C, Schüller J, Schmiedt E, et al. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of urolithiasis. Urology. 1984;23(5 Spec No):59-66. doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(84)90243-7.
Lawler AC, Ghiraldi EM, Tong C, et al. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy: Current Perspectives and Future Directions. Current Urology Reports. 2017;18(4):25. doi: 10.1007/s11934-017-0672-0.
Adams LG, Williams JC, Jr., McAteer JA, et al. In vitro evaluation of canine and feline calcium oxalate urolith fragility via shock wave lithotripsy. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 2005;66(9):1651-1654. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2005.66.1651.
Milligan M, Berent AC. Medical and Interventional Management of Upper Urinary Tract Uroliths. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice. 2019;49(2):157-174. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2018.11.004.
Large T, Krambeck AE. Emerging Technologies in Lithotripsy. Urologic Clinics of North America. 2019;46(2):215-223. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2018.12.012.
European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis (2022). [Online] https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis [Accessed: 14th April 2022]
Chaussy CG, Tiselius HG. How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Urolithiasis. 2018;46(1):3-17. doi: 10.1007/s00240-017-1020-z.
Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. European Urology. 2016;69(3):475-482. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041.
Talso M, Tefik T, Mantica G, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: current knowledge and future perspectives. Minerva Urology and Nephrology. 2019;71(4):365-372. doi: 10.23736/s0393-2249.19.03415-5.
Badawy AA, Saleem MD, Abolyosr A, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as first line treatment for urinary tract stones in children: outcome of 500 cases. International Urology and Nephrology. 2012;44(3):661-666. doi: 10.1007/s11255-012-0133-0.
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, et al. Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I. Journal of Urology. 2016;196(4):1153-1160. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090.
Nguyen DP, Hnilicka S, Kiss B, et al. Optimization of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Delivery Rates Achieves Excellent Outcomes for Ureteral Stones: Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial. Journal of Urology. 2015;194(2):418-423. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.110.
Pareek G, Hedican SP, Lee FT, Jr., et al. Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology. 2005;66(5):941-944. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.011.
Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, RJ DAH, et al. Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi. Urological Research. 2010;38(4):307-313. doi: 10.1007/s00240-010-0295-0.
Czaplicki M, Jakubczyk T, Judycki J, et al. ESWL in hemophiliac patients. European Urology. 2000;38(3):302-305. doi: 10.1159/000020297.
Sallami S, Baccouche H, Mahjoub S, et al. Extracorporeal lithotripsy in patients with hemophilia: systematic review. La Tunisie Médicale. 2015;93(1):1-4.
Bourdoumis A, Stasinou T, Kachrilas S, et al. Thromboprophylaxis and bleeding diathesis in minimally invasive stone surgery. Nature Reviews Urology. 2014;11(1):51-58. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2013.278.
Schlomer BJ. Urologic treatment of nephrolithiasis. Current Opinion in Pediatrics. 2020;32(2):288-294. doi: 10.1097/mop.0000000000000849.
Razvi H, Fuller A, Nott L, et al. Risk factors for perinephric hematoma formation after shockwave lithotripsy: a matched case-control analysis. Journal of Endourology. 2012;26(11):1478-1482. doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0261.
Fankhauser CD, Kranzbühler B, Poyet C, et al. Long-term Adverse Effects of Extracorporeal Shock-wave Lithotripsy for Nephrolithiasis and Ureterolithiasis: A Systematic Review. Urology. 2015;85(5):991-1006. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.12.014.
Hussein MM. Does tamsulosin increase stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy of renal stones? A prospective, randomized controlled study. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology. 2010;44(1):27-31. doi: 10.3109/00365590903359916.
Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al. 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Journal of Urology. 2007;178(6):2418-2434. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.107.
Seitz C, Liatsikos E, Porpiglia F, et al. Medical therapy to facilitate the passage of stones: what is the evidence? European Urology. 2009;56(3):455-471. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.06.012.
