ASSOCIATION BETWEEN METABOLIC SYNDROME AND STONE-FREE OUTCOMES FOLLOWING EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY FOR UPPER URINARY TRACT STONES: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Keywords:
Metabolic syndrome, Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, Urolithiasis, Stone-free rate, Retreatment, Retrospective studyAbstract
Background: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is associated with urinary stone disease, but its relationship with treatment outcomes following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) remains incompletely understood. This study investigated the association between MetS and stone-free outcomes in patients undergoing ESWL for upper urinary tract stones. Methods: This retrospective observational study analyzed 991 patients with upper urinary tract stones, including 256 patients with MetS and 735 without MetS. The primary outcome was stone-free status, and the secondary outcome was retreatment. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine associations between MetS and treatment outcomes. Three sequential models were constructed: an unadjusted model, a model adjusted for age and gender, and a fully adjusted model additionally incorporating stone size, stone location, and hydronephrosis. Results: The overall stone-free rate was 65.2% (646/991). Patients with MetS had a lower stone-free rate than those without MetS (60.2% vs. 66.9%; continuity-corrected chi-square P = 0.059). In the unadjusted logistic regression model, the odds ratio (OR) for stone-free status was 0.746 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.556–1.000; P = 0.0502). After adjustment for age, gender, stone size, stone location, and hydronephrosis, MetS was associated with lower odds of stone-free status (adjusted OR = 0.671, 95% CI: 0.484–0.930; P = 0.0166). Larger stone size was associated with lower odds of stone-free status (OR per mm = 0.816, 95% CI: 0.784–0.849; P < 0.001). Moderate hydronephrosis was also associated with lower odds of stone-free status (OR = 0.565, 95% CI: 0.381–0.837; P = 0.0045). MetS was not significantly associated with retreatment (adjusted OR = 1.108, 95% CI: 0.787–1.562; P = 0.557). Conclusions: MetS was associated with lower odds of stone-free status following ESWL after adjustment for demographic and stone-related factors, whereas no statistically significant association with retreatment was observed. These findings suggest that metabolic status may provide additional information when evaluating ESWL outcomes. Further studies incorporating stone density, skin-to-stone distance, and detailed metabolic characteristics are warranted.References
[1] Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K, et al. Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World Journal of Urology, 2017, 35: 1301–1320. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-017-2008-6.
[2] Khan S R, Pearle M S, Robertson W G, et al. Kidney stones. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 2016, 2: 16008. DOI: 10.1038/nrdp.2016.8.
[3] European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. 2026. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis/chapter/guidelines.
[4] Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller N L, et al. Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I. Journal of Urology, 2016, 196: 1153–1160. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090.
[5] Skolarikos A, Geraghty R, Somani B, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Urolithiasis. European Urology, 2025, 88(1): 64-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2025.03.011.
[6] Dassanayake S N, Lafont T, Somani B K. Association and risk of metabolic syndrome and kidney stone disease: outcomes from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Current Opinion in Urology, 2025, 35: 377–384. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000001227.
[7] West B, Luke A, Durazo-Arvizu R A, et al. Metabolic syndrome and self-reported history of kidney stones: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) 1988-1994. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 2008, 51: 741–747. DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.12.030.
[8] Maalouf N M, Cameron M A, Moe O W, et al. Low urine pH: a novel feature of the metabolic syndrome. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 2007, 2: 883–888. DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00670207.
[9] Sakhaee K, Maalouf N M. Metabolic syndrome and uric acid nephrolithiasis. Seminars in Nephrology, 2008, 28: 174–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.semnephrol.2008.01.010.
[10] Maalouf N M. Metabolic syndrome and the genesis of uric acid stones. Journal of Renal Nutrition, 2011, 21: 128–131. DOI: 10.1053/j.jrn.2010.10.015.
[11] Yin X, Li J, Pan C, et al. Development and validation of a predictive model for stone-free failure after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with ureteral stone in a large prospective cohort. World Journal of Urology, 2023, 41: 1431–1436. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04358-3.
[12] Liang J, Xie L, Gao H, et al. Factors influencing the efficacy of ultrasound-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones: a retrospective study. Urolithiasis, 2024, 52: 15. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-023-01512-9.
[13] Bajaj M, Smith R, Rice M, et al. Predictors of success following extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy in a contemporary cohort. Urology Annals, 2021, 13: 282–287. DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_155_19.
[14] Park Y I, Yu J H, Sung L H, et al. Evaluation of possible predictive variables for the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones. Korean Journal of Urology, 2010, 51: 713–718. DOI: 10.4111/kju.2010.51.10.713.
[15] El-Nahas A R, El-Assmy A M, Mansour O, et al. A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomography. European Urology, 2007, 51: 1688–1693; discussion 1693-1694. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.048.
[16] Pareek G, Hedican S P, Lee F T, et al. Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology, 2005, 66: 941–944. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.011.
[17] Wiesenthal J D, Ghiculete D, D'A Honey R J, 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: 307–313. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-010-0295-0.
[18] Garg M, Johnson H, Lee S-M, et al. Role of Hounsfield Unit in Predicting Outcomes of Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi: Outcomes of a Systematic Review. Current Urology Reports, 2023, 24: 173–185. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-023-01145-w.
[19] Hirsch B, Abt D, Güsewell S, et al. Outcome groups and a practical tool to predict success of shock wave lithotripsy in daily clinical routine. World Journal of Urology, 2021, 39: 943–951. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03253-5.
[20] Chinese Diabetes Society. Chinese guideline for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (2017 edition). Chinese Journal of Diabetes Mellitus, 2018, 10(1): 4–67. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-5809.2018.01.003.
[21] Lv Jianlin, Wu Fei, Gu Xian’en. Clinical practice guidelines for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in China. J Urol Clin (Electron Ed), 2025, 17(2): 1–8. DOI: 10.20020/j.CNKI.1674-7410.2025.02.01.
[22] Von Elm E, Altman D G, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet, 2007, 370: 1453–1457. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X.
[23] Dede O, Şener N C, Baş O, et al. Does morbid obesity influence the success and complication rates of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for upper ureteral stones? Turkish Journal of Urology, 2015, 41(1): 20–23. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2015.94824.
[24] Jacobs B L, Smaldone M C, Smaldone A M, et al. Effect of Skin-to-Stone Distance on Shockwave Lithotripsy Success. Journal of Endourology, 2008, 22: 1623–1628. DOI: 10.1089/end.2008.0169.
[25] Albala D M, Assimos D G, Clayman R V, et al. LOWER POLE I: A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY AND PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROSTOLITHOTOMY FOR LOWER POLE NEPHROLITHIASIS—INITIAL RESULTS. Journal of Urology, 2001, 166: 2072–2080. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65508-5.
[26] MacLennan S, Wiseman O, Smith D, et al. Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Flexible Ureterorenoscopy, and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Lower Pole Renal Stones. European Urology, 2025, 88: 231–239. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2025.01.020.