Predictive CT-based parameters for successful medical expulsive therapy in unilateral ureteral calculi: A prospective observational study

Abstract

Introduction:

Medical expulsive therapy (MET) has been shown to be a safe and effective option for the spontaneous passage of uncomplicated ureteric stones sizing ⩽10 mm in selected cases. However, there is lack of evidence on the predictors of successful MET. Our objective was to identify parameters that can accurately predict the spontaneous passage of ureteral stones during MET.

Methods:

Patients receiving MET (Tamsulosin 0.4 mg once daily (OD)) for a single unilateral ureteral calculi sizing ⩽10 mm were followed after 1 month using Non contrast Computed tomography (NCCT). Various parameters such as stone-related parameters (location, density, volume and transverse, longitudinal, and sagittal diameters), ureter-related parameters (diameter, density, and wall thickness at the stone site) and grade of hydronephrosis were evaluated on CT images and analyzed by using univariate, multivariate and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses.

Results:

Of 55 patients, 31 (56.4%) passed the stone successfully within 4 weeks of MET. Univariate analysis revealed these patients tended to have lower ureteric stones (p-value- 0.048), lower longitudinal (p-value- 0.024) and transverse stone diameters (p-value- 0.006), lower stone volume (p-value- 0.015) and ureteral wall thickness (UWT; p-value- 0.001). In multivariate analysis, only UWT at the stone site (p 0.036) was a significant predictor of the successful passage of calculus. The UWT cut-off was 2.1 mm with sensitivity and specificity of 83.8% and 62.5%, respectively, with an Area Under Curve (AUC) of 0.7856.

Conclusion:

The most significant predictor of successful stone passage in MET of unilateral ureteral stones was maximal UWT, with an optimal cut-off point of 2.1 mm.

Keywords

Medical expulsive therapy ureteral calculi ureteral wall thickness stone passage

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Assimos

Krambeck

Miller

, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society guideline, PART I. J Urol 2016; 196(4): 1153–1160.

Türk

Knoll

Seitz

, et al. Medical expulsive therapy for ureterolithiasis: the EAU recommendations in 2016. Eur Urol 2017; 71(4): 504–507.

Bizzarri

Campetella

Ragonese

, et al. The role of alternative medicine and complimentary therapies in urologic disease: new horizons. Urol J 2024; 91(4): 641–646.

Coll

Varanelli

Smith

. Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178(1): 101–103.

Mugiya

Ito

Maruyama

, et al. Endoscopic features of impacted ureteral stones. J Urol 2004; 171(1): 89–91.

Deliveliotis

Chrisofos

Albanis

, et al. Management and follow-up of impacted ureteral stones. Urol Int 2003; 70(4): 269–272.

Yoshida

Inoue

Taguchi

, et al. Ureteral wall thickness as a significant factor in predicting spontaneous passage of ureteral stones of ⩽ 10 mm: a preliminary report. World J Urol 2019; 37(5): 913–919.

Kachroo

Jain

Maskal

, et al. Can CT-Based stone impaction markers augment the predictive ability of spontaneous stone passage? J Endourol 2021; 35(4): 429–435.

Bizzarri

Campetella

Russo

, et al. Risk factors for benign uretero-enteric anastomotic strictures after open radical cystectomy and ileal conduit. Urol J 2025; 92(2): 224–230.

10.

Skolarikos

Laguna

Alivizatos

, et al. The role for active monitoring in urinary stones: a systematic review. J Endourol 2010; 24(6): 923–930.

11.

Metser

Ghai

Ong

, et al. Assessment of urinary tract calculi with 64-MDCT: the axial versus coronal plane. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192(6): 1509–1513.

12.

Kadihasanoglu

Marien

Miller

. Ureteral stone diameter on computerized tomography coronal reconstructions is clinically important and under-reported. Urology 2017; 102: 54–60.

13.

Sahin

Eryildirim

Kafkasli

, et al. Predictive parameters for medical expulsive therapy in ureteral stones: a critical evaluation. Urolithiasis 2015; 43(3): 271–275.

14.

Sarica

Kafkasli

Yazici

, et al. Ureteral wall thickness at the impacted ureteral stone site: a critical predictor for success rates after SWL. Urolithiasis 2015; 43(1): 83–88.

15.

Yoshida

Inoue

Omura

, et al. Ureteral wall thickness as a preoperative indicator of impacted stones in patients with ureteral stones undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Urology 2017; 106: 45–49.

16.

Selvi

Baydilli

Tokmak

, et al. CT-related parameters and Framingham score as predictors of spontaneous passage of ureteral stones ⩽ 10 mm: results from a prospective, observational, multicenter study. Urolithiasis 2021; 49(3): 227–237.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB