Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) in Patients With Infected Ureterohydronephrosis Due to Ureteral Stones Following Double-J Catheter Insertion

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) Vol. 16; no. 1; p. e51742
• Main Authors: Bandac, Alexandra Carina, Ristescu, Anca Irina, Costache, Cristian Radu, Bobeica, Razvan Lucian, Pantilimonescu, Theodor Florin, Onofrei, Sr, Pavel, Radu, Viorel Dragos
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Cureus Inc 06.01.2024; Cureus
• Subjects: Body mass index; Catheters; Hydronephrosis; Kidney stones; Lithotripsy; Patients; Public Health; Shock waves; Therapeutics; Ultrasonic imaging; Urinary tract infections; Urogenital system; Urology; ureteral stones; double-j catheter related symptoms; double-j catheter; eswl; infected ureterohydronephrosis
• ISSN: 2168-8184; 2168-8184
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51742

Double-J ureteral catheters in patients with ureteral lithiasis undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) procedures reduce the efficacy of the procedure or have no effect on the stone-free rate. However, the effect of double-J catheters on the patients in whom they were inserted for infected hydronephrosis is not known. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the ESWL procedure in patients with ureteral lithiasis and double-J catheters previously inserted for infected hydronephrosis. We conducted a comparative case-control, match-paired study in a group of patients with ureteral lithiasis treated by ESWL from January 1, 2018, to March 1, 2023, who were divided into two groups according to the presence of the double-J catheter. For each patient with the double-J catheter from the study group, we selected one patient for the control group without the double-J catheter and matched them in terms of size, location of stones, and body mass index (BMI). We analyzed the stone-free rate and complications that occurred in the two groups. Forty patients with ureteral lithiasis and a double-J catheter inserted for infected hydronephrosis were enrolled in the study group. The control group included 40 patients with ureteral stones without double-J catheters. The patients in the two groups were predominantly men with stones located in the lumbar region and on the right side and with a BMI between 25 and 30 kg/m . The stones had an average size of 0.9+/-0.12mm and 0.89+/-0.15mm, respectively (p=0.624). There was no statistically significant difference in stone-free rate between the two groups after the first session of ESWL (47.5% vs. 52.5%, p=0.502), the second (70% vs. 75%, p = 0.616), and the third session (85% vs. 87.5%, p=0.761). The rate of complications was similar in both groups (7.5% vs. 5%, p=0.761). The presence of double-J catheters inserted in patients with ureteral stones who underwent ESWL for infected hydronephrosis does not affect the stone-free rate of the procedure or the complication rate. The procedure of ESWL in patients with ureteral lithiasis and double-J catheters inserted for infected hydronephrosis is a safe and efficient method that can be recommended as an initial treatment alongside retrograde ureteroscopy.