Literature DB >> 10687964

Variation in clinical outcome following shock wave lithotripsy.

N F Logarakis1, M A Jewett, J Luymes, R J Honey.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We measure and compare operator specific success rates of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) performed by 12 urologists in 1 unit to determine interoperator variation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1, 1994 to September 1, 1997 a total of 5,769 renal and ureteral stones received 9,607 ESWL treatments by 15 urologists with a Dornier MFL 5000 lithotriptor. The 3-month followup data are available for 4,409 stones. Outcome measures consisted of patient demographics, stone characteristics, technical details of lithotripsy, and stone-free and success rates by treating urologists.
RESULTS: Treatment results were analyzed for 12 urologists (surgeons A to L) who treated more than 100 stones each, totaling 4,244 with followup information available. Mean stone-free and success rates were 50.6% and 72.3%, respectively. Surgeon A had significantly higher stone-free and success rates of 56.2% and 76.7%, respectively (p<0.05), with treatment results from 877 stones, which was a significantly higher number than others (p<0.05). Significant differences existed in mean number of shocks delivered among urologists (p = 0.0001), with surgeons A and J delivering the highest mean numbers (2,317 and 2,801, respectively). There was no difference in treatment duration (p = 0.75) but variation existed among urologists in terms of mean maximum treatment voltage (p = 0.0001). Mean fluoroscopy time at 4.1 minutes was higher for surgeon A than others (p<0.05). Mean complication rate following ESWL was 4.9% with no difference among urologists (p = 0.175). Re-treatment was required in 21.7% of cases and surgeon A had the lowest rate (15.9%, p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated clinically and statistically significant intra-institutional differences in success rates following ESWL. The best results were obtained by the urologist who treated the greatest number of patients, used a high number of shocks and had the longest fluoroscopy time. Accurate targeting is crucial when using a lithotriptor, such as the Dornier MFL 5000, with a narrow focal zone of 6.5 mm. in diameter. Other centers should be encouraged to develop similar programs of outcome analysis in an attempt to improve performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10687964

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  24 in total

1.  CUA Guideline: Management of ureteral calculi.

Authors:  Michael Ordon; Sero Andonian; Brian Blew; Trevor Schuler; Ben Chew; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 2.  The clinical efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in pediatric urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Pei Lu; Zijie Wang; Rijin Song; Xiaolan Wang; Kai Qi; Qiying Dai; Wei Zhang; Min Gu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Assessing the efficiency of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for stones in renal units with impaired function: a prospective controlled study.

Authors:  Anand Srivastava; Tapan Sinha; S C Karan; A S Sandhu; S K Gupta; G S Sethi; R Talwar; V Narang; N Adlakha; A Agarwal
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2006-02-15

4.  Comparison of two different running models for the shock wave lithotripsy machine in Taipei City Hospital: self-support versus outsourcing cooperation.

Authors:  Chi-Yi Huang; Shiou-Sheng Chen; Li-Kuei Chen
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2009-07-14

Review 5.  Recent advances in lithotripsy technology and treatment strategies: A systematic review update.

Authors:  H E Elmansy; J E Lingeman
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 6.071

Review 6.  Optimisation of shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review of technical aspects to improve outcomes.

Authors:  Su-Min Lee; Neil Collin; Helen Wiseman; Joe Philip
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-09

7.  Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones.

Authors:  Abdulla Al-Ansari; Khalid As-Sadiq; Sami Al-Said; Nagy Younis; Osama A Jaleel; Ahmed A Shokeir
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.370

8.  [Outpatient extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Prospective evaluation of 2937 cases].

Authors:  P J Bastian; H-P Bastian
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 9.  Shock wave lithotripsy: the new phoenix?

Authors:  Andreas Neisius; Michael E Lipkin; Jens J Rassweiler; Pei Zhong; Glenn M Preminger; Thomas Knoll
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Helical CT evaluation of the chemical composition of urinary tract calculi with a discriminant analysis of CT-attenuation values and density.

Authors:  Marie-France Bellin; Raphaëlle Renard-Penna; Pierre Conort; Anne Bissery; Jean-Baptiste Meric; Michel Daudon; Alain Mallet; François Richard; Philippe Grenier
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-06-25       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.