WELCOME TO physician section

Pediatric Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Evidence-Based Clinical Resource for Physicians

Pediatric Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Evidence-Based Clinical Resource for Physicians

Patient Selection for Pediatric ESWL

Age Considerations

Evidence: ESWL has been successfully performed in children of all ages, including premature infants. Studies have shown high success rates across pediatric age groups, with stone-free rates of 86-100% in infants younger than 12 months.

Turna et al. (2025), Akin & Yucel (2014)

  • Infants (<1 year): ESWL is safe and effective, though experience is limited
  • Toddlers (1–3 years): Safety profile established with careful patient selection
  • Children (3–12 years): Most studied population with excellent outcomes
  • Adolescents (12–18 years): Outcomes comparable to adults with higher success rates

McLorie et al. (2003), Griffin et al. (2010)

FDA Regulatory Note

The FDA states: “The safety and effectiveness of this device in the treatment of urolithiasis in children have not been demonstrated.” However, extensive clinical experience supports its use with appropriate precautions.

FDA Guidance Document (2018)

Stone Size Criteria

Stone Size Recommendation Expected Success Rate Reference
<10 mm Optimal for ESWL 90–100% Straub et al. (2010)
10–20 mm First-line treatment (EAU Guidelines) 70–90% Güven et al. (2024)
>20 mm Consider combined treatment or alternative modalities 57–75% Mohamed et al. (2023)
Cystine stones >15 mm Consider endoscopic approach Variable Straub et al. (2010)

Stone Location

Renal Stones:

  • Renal pelvis: Excellent candidate
  • Upper/middle pole calices: Good candidate
  • Lower pole calices: Success rate 50–62% (affected by infundibulopelvic angle)

Lower Pole Anatomic Predictors: An infundibulopelvic angle <40° reduces clearance. Infundibular length also affects outcomes.

Tan et al. (cited in Straub 2010)

Ureteral Stones:

  • Upper ureteral stones: Excellent success with ESWL
  • Mid-ureteral stones: Moderate success
  • Lower ureteral stones: Consider ureteroscopy
  • Small stones (4–6 mm): May pass spontaneously

Garg et al. (2018)

Stone Composition

Stone Type Hounsfield Units (HU) ESWL Suitability Success Rate
Calcium oxalate monohydrate >1000 Moderate 44–70%
Calcium oxalate dihydrate 500–1000 Good 95–96%
Uric acid <500 Excellent >95%
Struvite Variable Good 85–90%
Cystine Variable Poor if >15 mm <60%

Massoud et al. (2019), Ouzaid et al. (cited in Demir 2025)

Shear Wave Elastography (SWE): Cutoff 13.70 kPa predicts ESWL success (AUC 0.979). May serve as alternative to HU.

Demir et al. (2025)

Absolute Contraindications

  • Pregnancy (absolute)
  • Coagulopathy or active anticoagulation
  • Acute UTI/urosepsis
  • Vascular aneurysm in shock path
  • Distal obstruction
  • Severe obesity or spinal deformity preventing focus

FDA Guidance (2018), Streem et al. (1997), StatPearls (2024)

Relative Contraindications & Special Considerations

  • Arrhythmias: use ECG-gated mode
  • Poorly controlled hypertension: higher hematoma risk
  • Bleeding disorders: careful monitoring
  • Pacemakers/ICDs: safe with monitoring
  • Morbid obesity: positioning modifications

Streem et al. (1997), Knapp et al. 2018

Growth Plate Considerations

Animal data show growth plate effects. No clinical evidence of growth issues in children.

FDA Guidance (2018)

Why Children Often Do Better

  • Softer stone composition on average
  • Smaller stone volume
  • Shorter skin-to-stone distance
  • More compliant ureter
  • Smaller body habitus aids targeting

Sampaio et al., Newman et al.