Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2022 Mar;26(19):1–70. doi: 10.3310/WUZW9042

Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT.

Ranan Dasgupta, Sarah Cameron, Lorna Aucott, Graeme MacLennan, Mary M Kilonzo, Thomas Bl Lam, Ruth Thomas, John Norrie, Alison McDonald, Ken Anson, James N'Dow, Neil Burgess, Charles T Clark, Francis X Keeley, Sara J MacLennan, Kath Starr, Samuel McClinton
PMCID: PMC8958411  PMID: 35301982

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Urinary stone disease affects 2-3% of the general population. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain and can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. Most ureteric stones are expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care; however, between one-fifth and one-third of patients require an active intervention. The two standard interventions are shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic stone treatment. Both treatments are effective, but they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, number of procedures, complications, patient-reported outcomes and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the more clinically effective and cost-effective treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if shockwave lithotripsy is clinically effective and cost-effective compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active intervention.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial of shockwave lithotripsy as a first-line treatment option compared with primary ureteroscopic stone treatment for ureteric stones.

SETTING

Urology departments in 25 NHS hospitals in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged ≥ 16 years presenting with a single ureteric stone in any segment of the ureter, confirmed by computerised tomography, who were able to undergo either shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopic stone treatment and to complete trial procedures.

INTERVENTION

Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 to shockwave lithotripsy (up to two sessions) or ureteroscopic stone treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary clinical outcome measure was resolution of the stone episode (stone clearance), which was operationally defined as 'no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance' up to 6 months from randomisation. This was determined from 8-week and 6-month case report forms and any additional hospital visit case report form that was completed by research staff. The primary economic outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months from randomisation. We estimated costs from NHS resources and calculated quality-adjusted life-years from participant completion of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at baseline, pre intervention, 1 week post intervention and 8 weeks and 6 months post randomisation.

RESULTS

In the shockwave lithotripsy arm, 67 out of 302 (22.2%) participants needed further treatment. In the ureteroscopic stone treatment arm, 31 out of 302 (10.3%) participants needed further treatment. The absolute risk difference was 11.4% (95% confidence interval 5.0% to 17.8%); the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval ruled out the prespecified margin of non-inferiority (which was 20%). The mean quality-adjusted life-year difference (shockwave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopic stone treatment) was -0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.033 to -0.010) and the mean cost difference was -£809 (95% confidence interval -£1061 to -£551). The probability that shockwave lithotripsy is cost-effective is 79% at a threshold of society's willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year of £30,000. The CEAC is derived from the joint distribution of incremental costs and incremental effects. Most of the results fall in the south-west quadrant of the cost effectiveness plane as SWL always costs less but is less effective.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of the trial was low return and completion rates of patient questionnaires. The study was initially powered for 500 patients in each arm; however, the total number of patients recruited was only 307 and 306 patients in the ureteroscopic stone treatment and shockwave lithotripsy arms, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving shockwave lithotripsy needed more further interventions than those receiving primary ureteroscopic retrieval, although the overall costs for those receiving the shockwave treatment were lower. The absolute risk difference between the two clinical pathways (11.4%) was lower than expected and at a level that is acceptable to clinicians and patients. The shockwave lithotripsy pathway is more cost-effective in an NHS setting, but results in lower quality of life.

FUTURE WORK

(1) The generic health-related quality-of-life tools used in this study do not fully capture the impact of the various treatment pathways on patients. A condition-specific health-related quality-of-life tool should be developed. (2) Reporting of ureteric stone trials would benefit from agreement on a core outcome set that would ensure that future trials are easier to compare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN92289221.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Approximately 1 in 20 people suffers from kidney stones that pass down the urine drainage tube (ureter) into the urinary bladder and cause episodes of severe pain (ureteric colic). People with ureteric colic attend hospital for pain relief and diagnosis. Although most stones smaller than 10 mm eventually reach the bladder and are passed during urination, some get stuck and have to be removed using telescopic surgery (called ureteroscopic stone treatment) or shockwave therapy (called shockwave lithotripsy). Ureteroscopic stone treatment involves passing a telescope-containing instrument through the bladder and into the ureter to fragment and/or remove the stone. This is usually carried out under general anaesthetic as a day case. For shockwave lithotripsy, the patient lies flat on a couch and the apparatus underneath them generates shockwaves that pass through the skin to the ureter and break the stones into smaller fragments, which can be passed naturally in the urine. This involves using X-ray or ultrasound to locate the stone, but can be carried out on an outpatient basis and without general anaesthetic. Telescopic surgery is known to be more successful at removing stones after just one treatment, but it requires more time in hospital and has a higher risk of complications than shockwave lithotripsy (however, shockwave lithotripsy may require more than one session of treatment). Our study, the Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter trial, was designed to establish if treatment for ureteric colic should start with telescopic surgery or shockwave therapy. Over 600 NHS patients took part and they were split into two groups. Each patient had an equal chance of their treatment starting with either telescopic surgery or shockwave lithotripsy, which was decided by a computer program (via random allocation). We counted how many patients in each group had further procedures to remove their stone. We found that telescopic surgery was 11% more effective overall, with an associated slightly better quality of life (10 more healthy days over the 6-month period), but was more expensive in an NHS setting. The finding of a lack of any significant additional clinical benefit leads to the conclusion that the more cost-effective treatment pathway is shockwave lithotripsy with telescopic surgery used only in those patients in whom shockwave lithotripsy is unsuccessful.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. McClinton S, Cameron S, Starr K, Thomas R, MacLennan G, McDonald A, et al. TISU: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2018;19:286. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2652-1 doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2652-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Aboumarzouk OM, Kata SG, Keeley FX, McClinton S, Nabi G. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;5:CD006029. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006029.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006029.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Drake T, Grivas N, Dabestani S, Knoll T, Lam T, Maclennan S, et al. What are the benefits and harms of ureteroscopy compared with shock-wave lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral stones? A systematic review. Eur Urol 2017;72:772–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.016 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Heers H, Turney BW. Trends in urological stone disease: a 5-year update of hospital episode statistics. BJU Int 2016;118:785–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13520 doi: 10.1111/bju.13520. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Turney BW, Reynard JM, Noble JG, Keoghane SR. Trends in urological stone disease. BJU Int 2012;109:1082–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10495.x doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10495.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Seitz C, Fajkovic H. Epidemiological gender-specific aspects in urolithiasis. World J Urol 2013;31:1087–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1140-1 doi: 10.1007/s00345-013-1140-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Rukin N, Siddiqui Z, Chedgy E, Somani B. Trends in upper tract stone disease in England: evidence from the hospital episodes statistics (HES) database. BJU Int 2016;117:11–12. doi: 10.1159/000449510. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Antonelli JA, Maalouf NM, Pearle MS, Lotan Y. Use of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to calculate the impact of obesity and diabetes on cost and prevalence of urolithiasis in 2030. Eur Urol 2014;66:724–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.036 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  9. Medindia. Michigan Hospitals Lead the Way in Preventing Common and Costly Urinary Tract Infections. URL: www.medindia.net/news/michigan-hospitals-led-the-way-in-preventing-common-and-costly-urinary-tract-infections-116433-1.htm (accessed January 2019).
  10. Bihl G, Meyers A. Recurrent renal stone disease-advances in pathogenesis and clinical management. Lancet 2001;358:651–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05782-8 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05782-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Wilkinson H. Clinical investigation and management of patients with renal stones. Ann Clin Biochem 2001;38:180–7. https://doi.org/10.1258/0004563011900623 doi: 10.1258/0004563011900623. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC. Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int 2003;63:1817–23. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00917.x doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00917.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. New F, Somani BK. A complete world literature review of quality of life (QOL) in patients with kidney stone disease (KSD). Curr Urol Rep 2016;17:88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0647-6 doi: 10.1007/s11934-016-0647-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Bultitude M, Rees J. Management of renal colic. BMJ 2012;345:e5499. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5499 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5499. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, Lam T, Thomas R, Burr J, et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2015;386:341–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60933-3 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60933-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Türk C, Neisius A, Petrick A, Seitz C, Thomas K, Skolarikos A. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis 2018. 2018. URL: http://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/ (accessed September 2018).
  17. Perez Castro E, Osther PJ, Jinga V, Razvi H, Stravodimos KG, Parikh K, et al. Differences in ureteroscopic stone treatment and outcomes for distal, mid-, proximal, or multiple ureteral locations: the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society ureteroscopy global study. Eur Urol 2014;66:102–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.011 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Geraghty RM, Jones P, Herrmann TRW, Aboumarzouk O, Somani BK. Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 2018;36:1783–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2320-9 doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2320-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. Dasgupta R, Hegarty N, Thomas K. Emergency shock wave lithotripsy for ureteric stones. Curr Opin Urol 2009;19:196–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0b013e32831e4263 doi: 10.1097/mou.0b013e32831e4263. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck AC, Gallucci M, et al. 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol 2007;52:1610–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.039 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.039. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Dasgupta R, Cameron S, Aucott L, MacLennan G, Thomas RE, Kilonzo M, et al. Shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic treatment as therapeutic interventions for stones of the ureter (TISU): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Eur Urol 2021;80:46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.02.044 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.02.044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Nafie S, Dyer JE, Minhas JS, Mills JA, Khan MA. Efficacy of a mobile lithotripsy service: a one-year review of 222 patients. Scand J Urol 2014;48:324–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2014.886288 doi: 10.3109/21681805.2014.886288. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Department of Health and Social Care. NHS Reference Costs 2013–14. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/#rc1718 (accessed May 2014).
  24. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-3L: About. 2017. URL: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-3l-about/ (accessed August 2019).
  26. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34:220–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA. Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis 1978;37:378–81. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.37.4.378 doi: 10.1136/ard.37.4.378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  28. Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:702–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwh090 doi: 10.1093/aje/kwh090. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword (accessed August 2019). [PubMed]
  30. Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2015;18:161–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. 2018. URL: https://about.medicinescomplete.com/publication/british-national-formulary/ (accessed January 2018).
  32. Department of Health and Social Care. NHS Reference Costs 2017–18. 2018. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/#rc1718 (accessed January 2018).
  33. Curtis LA, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2017.
  34. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. Population Norms for EQ-5D. Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper 172. York: University of York; 1999.
  35. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002;21:271–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8 doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Glick H, Doshi J, Sonnad S, Polsky D. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2007.
  37. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
  38. Gabrio A, Mason AJ, Baio G. Handling missing data in within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis: a review with future recommendations. Pharmacoecon Open 2017;1:79–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0015-6 doi: 10.1007/s41669-017-0015-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067 doi: 10.1002/sim.4067. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Chan LH, Good DW, Laing K, Phipps S, Thomas BG, Keanie JY, et al. Primary SWL is an efficient and cost-effective treatment for lower pole renal stones between 10 and 20 mm in size: a large single center study. J Endourol 2017;31:510–16. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0825 doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0825. [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. Koo V, Young M, Thompson T, Duggan B. Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi. BJU Int 2011;108:1913–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10172.x doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10172.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. Lotan Y, Gettman MT, Roehrborn CG, Cadeddu JA, Pearle MS. Management of ureteral calculi: a cost comparison and decision making analysis. J Urol 2002;167:1621–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65166-X doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65166-X. [DOI] [PubMed]
  43. Pearle MS, Nadler R, Bercowsky E, Chen C, Dunn M, Figenshau RS, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol 2001;166:1255–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65748-5 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65748-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  44. Cone EB, Eisner BH, Ursiny M, Pareek G. Cost-effectiveness comparison of renal calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol 2014;28:639–43. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0669 doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0669. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Renal and Ureteric Stones: Assessment and Management (NICE Guideline 118). URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng118/evidence (accessed January 2019). [PubMed]
  46. Chaussy CG, Tiselius H. How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Urolithiasis 2018;46:3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1020-z doi: 10.1007/s00240-017-1020-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Sharma NL, Alexander CE, Grout E, Turney BW. Shock-wave lithotripsy: variance within UK practice. Urolithiasis 2017;45:193–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0886-5 doi: 10.1007/s00240-016-0886-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. Bucci S, Umari P, Rizzo M, Pavan N, Liguori G, Barbone F, Trombetta C. Emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy as opposed to delayed shockwave lithotripsy for the treatment of acute renal colic due to obstructive ureteral stone: a prospective randomized trial. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2018;70:526–33. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03084-9 doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03084-9. [DOI] [PubMed]

RESOURCES