{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,9,18]],"date-time":"2025-09-18T10:19:22Z","timestamp":1758190762470,"version":"3.44.0"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Clujul Medical","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,9,17]],"date-time":"2025-09-17T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1758067200000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Med Pharm Rep"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Objectives. The low efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of lower pole stones is well known; the parameters which influence this effect are still under debate: patient age, stone size, presence of double J stent, body mass index (BMI), and radiological parameters of the lower calyx, such as infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), infundibulum length (IL), and width (IW) of patients and the skin-stone size.\nMethods. We studied the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of lower calyx stones. All patients were investigated by uro- CT or intravenous urography (IVU), or kidney, ureter, bladder (KUB) radiography to confirm the diagnosis. J stents were inserted before therapy in 64 (18.6%) renal units. Factors affecting success, stone-free rate and complications were analyzed. We measured the skin-stone distance (SSD) of the lower calyx on 39 uro-CT image data, and infundibulum length, width and infundibulopelvic angle on 31 intravenous urography (IVU).\nResults. Our retrospective study (between 2021 and 2024) included a total of 344 patients who underwent ESWL for lower calyceal stone (172 men, 172 women) with an average stone size 9.093\u00b12.829 mm. 68.605% of patients became stone-free after the first ESWL session. The average skin stone distances measured in 0\u00b0, 45\u00b0, 90\u00b0 angles were 96.5 \u00b1 24.92 mm. Using the Chi-square test, we concluded that previously stented patients had a statistically lower stone-free rate (SFR) than those without a stent. (p=0.0078). The body mass index (BMI) of patients also influenced the SFR, as calculated with an Unpaired t-test and Welch correction (p = 0.002). We did not find any statistically significant differences between skin-stone sizes of patients with or without successful stone fragmentation (p=0.1147), and infundibulum length (p=0.07), infundibulum width (p=0.7681), and infundibulopelvic angle (p=0.996).\nConclusions. Single ESWL sessions often fail to achieve stone fragmentation and elimination, as this study shows. The success of ESWL sessions can be affected by the anatomical position of the stone, a lower pole kidney stone, the presence of pre-procedural double J stenting, and obesity.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.15386\/mpr-2913","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,9,17]],"date-time":"2025-09-17T09:26:53Z","timestamp":1758101213000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Factors influencing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy efficiency in the management of lower pole stones"],"prefix":"10.15386","author":[{"given":"D\u00f3ra-Andrea","family":"Miheler","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Tibor","family":"Reman","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Raul","family":"Gherasim","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Oliv\u00e9r A.","family":"Vida","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Daniel","family":"Porav-Hodade","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Orsolya","family":"M\u00e1rtha","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"6100","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,9,17]]},"container-title":["Medicine and Pharmacy Reports"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/medpharmareports.com\/index.php\/mpr\/article\/download\/2913\/3352","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/medpharmareports.com\/index.php\/mpr\/article\/download\/2913\/3352","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,9,17]],"date-time":"2025-09-17T09:26:54Z","timestamp":1758101214000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/medpharmareports.com\/index.php\/mpr\/article\/view\/2913"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,9,17]]},"references-count":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.15386\/mpr-2913","relation":{},"ISSN":["2668-0572","2602-0807"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2668-0572","type":"electronic"},{"value":"2602-0807","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,9,17]]}}}