Published 2019-01-09
Riza Mazidu Sholihin Soetojo Soetojo Haviv Muris


Objective: To describe the profile of lower pole kidney stone patients who underwent Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and the clearance rate of ESWL for lower pole kidney stones at Soetomo General Hospital from 2012 to 2016. Material & Methods: This research design was analytical retrospective, lower pole kidney stone patients who underwent ESWL in Soetomo General Hospital from 2012 to 2016 who fulfill inclusion criteria become samples in this research. Samples were divided into two group, stone size <15 mm and 15-20 mm. Results: Total samples in this study were 128, consist of 81 males and 47 females. The age average was 48 ± 11.124. The stone size average was 9.5 ± 4.5 mm consisted of 109 patients with stone size <15 mm and 19 patients with stone size 15-20 mm. There were 119 single lower pole kidney stones and 9 multiple ones. From all patients, 77 patients (60.2%) were stones free and the rest (39.8%) were not. Stone free rate for lower pole kidney stones was higher in stone size <15 mm compared with 15-20 mm, 65.2% and 31.5% respectively. Statistical analysis with Chi-square showed significant ESWL clearance rate difference between lower pole kidney stone size <15mm group and 15-20 mm (p<0.05). Conclusion: ESWL was a safe option for lower pole kidney stones with high success rate. There was significant relationship between stone size and stone clearance rate. ESWL was effective for lower pole kidney stones size <15 mm. 



Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, lower pole kidney stone, stone free rate


Purnomo BB. Batu saluran kemih. In: Purnomo BB. Dasar-Dasar Urologi, 3rd Ed. Jakarta: Sagung Seto; 2011. p. 85-99.

Stoller M, Meng M. Urinary stone disease: the practical guide to medical and surgical management. New Jersey: Humana Press; 2007. p. 27-35.

Pearle MS, Antonelli JA, Lotan Y. Urinary lithiasis: etiology, epidemiology and pathogenesis. In: Louis R. Kavoussi, Alan J. Wein, Andrew C. Novick, Alan W. Partin, Craig A. Peters, editor. Campbell Walsh Urology, 11th Ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders. 2016; 2: 1170-99.

Bach C, Karaolides T, Buchholz N. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: What is new? Arab Journal of Urology. 2012; 10: 289-95.

Indonesian Urological Association. Clinical Practice Guideline (Pedoman Penatalaksanaan Klinik mengenai penatalaksanaan penyakit batu saluran kemih). Jakarta; 2007.

Ridha M, Soebadi DM. ESWL for renal and ureteral stone. Indonesian Journal of Urology. 2014; 21: 56-62.

Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikas A, Straub M, et al. Guidelines on urolithiasis. European Association of Urology; 2016. p. 1124-851.

Alanee S, Ugarte R, Monga M. The effectiveness of shock wave lithotripters: a case matched comparison. J Urol. 2010; 184: 2364-7.

Argyropoulos AN, Tolley DA. Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy in the 21st century. European Urology. 2007; 52: 344-54.

Bach C, Buchholz N. Shock wave lithotripsy for renal and ureteric stones. European Urology Supplements. 2011; 10: 423-32.

Ghimire P, Yogi N, Acharya GB. Outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in western region of Nepal. Nepal Journal of Medicines Sciences. 2012; 1(1): 3-6.

Elkoushy MA, Nady M, Hafez AA, Salah E. Predicting the fragility of renal calculi in response to shock wave lithotripsy through their radiographic appearance. African Journal of Urology. 2011; 17(2): 37-42.

Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, Nyhuis AW, Woods JR. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol. 1994; 151: 663-7.

Abe T, Akakura K, Kawaguchi M, Ueda T, Ichikawa T, Ito H, et al. Outcome of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large-scale study at single institution. Journal of Endourology. 2005; 19(7): 768-73.

Havel D, Saussine C, Fath C, Lang H, Faure F, Jacqmin D. Single stones of the lower pole of the kidney: comparative results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol. 1998; 33: 396-400.

Salem S, Mehrsai A, Zartab H, Shahdadi N, Pourmand G. Complications and outcomes following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective study of 3.241 patients. Urol Res. 2010; 38: 135-42.

Musa AA. Use of double-J stents prior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is not beneficial: results of a prospective randomized study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2008; 40(1): 19-22.

Cicerello E, Merlo F, Maccatrozzo L. Management of clinically insignificant residual fragments following shock wave lithotripsy. Advances in Urology; 2012.

Copyright Information
Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine/Airlangga University