A consecutive series of patients undergoing trans-urethral cystolithotripsy with ballistic lithotripsy by a tertiary referral center for neurogenic bladder

Main Article Content

Matteo Maltagliati http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9621-7332
Gianluca Sampogna
Marco Citeri
Chiara Stefania Guerrer
Lucia Giovanna Zanollo
Luigi Rizzato
Emanuele Montanari
Salvatore Micali
Bernardo Rocco
Michele Spinelli


ballistic lithotripsy, bladder stone, neurogenic bladder, trans-urethral cystolithotripsy, spinal cord injury


Background and aim of the work

Patients with neurogenic bladder (NB) have an increased risk of developing bladder stones due to bladder catheter, incomplete bladder emptying, recurrent urinary tract infections, and immobilization. In these patients, minimally invasive treatments are usually adopted, as noninvasive extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy is limited by the risk of not clearing all stone fragments, and open surgery is usually discouraged.

The aim of our study was to present our experience with trans-urethral cystolithotripsy (TUCL) in patients treated by a tertiary referral center for NB.


We retrospectively collected pre-, intra- and post-operative data from our patients, who underwent TUCL from October 2013 to October 2019. The procedure was performed with a 24 Fr cystoscope and a ballistic lithotripter. Lapaxy was performed with Ellik bladder evacuator. All procedures were performed by two expert surgeons. Stone-free rate (SFR) was defined as the percentage of patients with absence of residual fragments > 2 mm in diameter.


We performed consecutively 90 TUCLs in 75 patients during the selected period. SFR was 94.1%. Intra- and post-operative complications occurred in one (1.1%) patient. Our statistical analysis outlined the SFR was affected in a statistically significant way by sex, NB etiology, stone cumulative diameter, and operative time.


Our series proved the safety and efficacy of TUCL with ballistic lithotripsy in NB patients. Further multicenter randomized controlled trials are mandatory to validate definitively TUCL as the gold standard therapy for bladder urolithiasis in NB patients, and to identify risk factors limiting the SFR.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...
Abstract 88 | PDF Downloads 40


[1] Gormley EA. Urologic complications of the neurogenic bladder. Urol Clin North Am 2010; 37: 601–607.
[2] Ost MC, Lee BR. Review urolithiasis in patients with spinal cord injuries: risk factors, management, and outcomes. Curr Opin Urol 2006; 16: 93–99.
[3] Linsenmeyer TA, Stone JM, Stein S. Neurogenic bladder and bowel dysfunction. In: DeLisa JA (eds). Rehabilitation Medicine Principles and Practice, 4th edn Lippincott- Raven: Philadelphia, PA, pp 1619–1653, 2004.
[4] Burton JM, Morozova OM., Calming the Storm: Dysautonomia for the Pediatrician., Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2017 Jul;47(7):145-1
[5] Nabbout P, Slobodov G, Culkin DJ. Surgical management of urolithiasis in spinal cord injury patients. Curr Urol Rep 2014; 15: 408–412.
[6] Kilciler M, Sumer F, Bedir S, Ozgok Y, Erduran D. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment in paraplegic patients with bladder stones. Int J Urol 2002; 9: 632–634.
[7] Yasuhiko Igawa, Jean-Jacques Wyndaele, Osamu Nishizawa, Catheterization: Possible complications and their prevention and treatment, International Journal of Urology (2008) 15, 481–485.
[8] Trop CS, Bennett CJ. Complications from long-term indwelling Foley catheters in female patients with neurogenic bladder. Semin. Urol. 1992; 10: 115–20.
[9] Nomura S, Ishido T, Teranishi J, Makiyama K. Long-term analysis of suprapubic cystostomy drainage in patients with neurogenic bladder. Urol. Int. 2000; 65: 185–9.
[10] Fischer M., Schmutzhard E., Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome., J Neurol. 2017 Aug;264(8):1608-1616.
[11] J. Ord, D. Lunn, J. Reynard, Bladder management and risk of bladder stone formation in spinal cord injured patients, The Journal of Urology, Vol. 170, 1734–1737, November 2003.
[12] Eyre KS, DW Eyre DW, Reynard JM. Morbidity associated with operative management of bladder stones in spinal cord-injured patients, Spinal Cord (2015), 1–5.
[13] Vorreuther R, Corleis R, Klotz T, Bernards P, Engelmann U. Impact of shock wave pattern and cavitation bubble size on tissue damage during ureteroscopic electrohydraulic lithotripsy. J Urol 1995; 153: 849–853.
[14] Hotiana MZ, Khan LA, Talati J. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for bladder stones. Br. J. Urol. 1993;71: 692–4.
[15] Karami H., Razaghi MR., Javanmard B., Outpatient Transurethral Cystolithotripsy of Large Bladder Stones by Holmium Laser., J Lasers Med Sci. 2016 Winter;7(1):12-5.
[16] Un-no T., Nagata M., Takayama T., et al, Cystolithotripsy for bladder stones: comparison of holmium:YAG laser with Lithoclast as a lithotripsy device, Hinyokika Kiyo. 2000 May;46(5):307-9.
[17] Cameron AP., Rofriguez GM., Schomer KG., Systematic review of urological follow-up after spinal cord injury. J Urol. 2012 Feb;187(2):391-7.
[18] Matlaga BR., Kim SC., Watkins SL. Et al., Changing composition of renal calculi in patients with neurogenic bladder. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1716-9.