Literature DB >> 11445472

Impact of power index, hydroureteronephrosis, stone size, and composition on the efficacy of in situ boosted ESWL for primary proximal ureteral calculi.

I Singh1, N P Gupta, A K Hemal, P N Dogra, M S Ansari, A Seth, M Aron.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The efficacy, safety, feasibility, and outcome of in situ treatment applied to select proximal ureteral calculi was assessed and analyzed with a view to avoiding auxiliary interventions and providing high clearance rates in the shortest possible time. We studied the impact of several clinically important variables, including power index, degree of hydroureteronephrosis (HDUN), stone size, and composition on the efficacy of sequential in situ boosted extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in a select group. The power index requirement for the in situ boosted protocol and the impact of the stone size/composition, degree of HDUN, and clearance rates were also analyzed.
METHODS: An in situ (no instrumentation) boosted protocol was applied to 130 primary unimpacted proximal ureteral calculi with no prior intervention. A typical session with the Siemens Lithostar Plus comprised 3000 shock waves, in installments of 500, deployed at a power setting of 1 to 4 kV with a gradual stepwise escalation. Sequential boosted additional sessions of ESWL were administered on days 2, 7, and 14, tailored to the degree of fragmentation, clearance status, and amount of residual stone bulk. Several parameters (shock waves, kilovolts used, fluoroscopy time, number of sessions, stone size, composition, fragmentation, clearance, and HDUN) were recorded and the results analyzed statistically.
RESULTS: The results were excellent in 83.8%, with a mean duration to complete clearance of 11.3 days. In situ ESWL failed in 7.69%, and the auxiliary intervention rate was 10.7%. Pre-ESWL HDUN was present in 78.3%, the mean power index was 184.6/session/case, and the average stone burden was 8.9 mm(2). Calcium oxalate monohydrate was the most common stone (56%). Renal colic was the most common side effect observed. The power index, fragmentation at the first session, and stone size were found to be the most favorable significant variables affecting stone clearance. The degree of HDUN, number of sessions, and stone composition did not significantly impact the clearance rates.
CONCLUSIONS: In situ boosted ESWL should be the first-line therapeutic modality in select unimpacted primary proximal ureteral stones.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11445472     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01088-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  11 in total

1.  Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy is a reliable method for urinary stone analysis.

Authors:  Nazım Mutlu; Seyfettin Çiftçi; Turgay Gülecen; Belgin Genç Öztoprak; Arif Demir
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2016-03

2.  Treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscope with lithoclast.

Authors:  Ehab R Tawfick
Journal:  Int Arch Med       Date:  2010-01-28

3.  Comparison of the effects of retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral calculi.

Authors:  Sheng-Lin Gao; Hao Wu; Quan-Xin Su; Zi-Yi Zhang; Ze Zhang; Chao Lu; Li-Feng Zhang; Li Zuo
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 1.817

4.  [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

5.  Analysis of urinary stone composition in Eastern India by X-ray diffraction crystallography.

Authors:  Tarun Jindal; Soumendra Nath Mandal; Pankaj Sonar; Mir Reza Kamal; Nabankur Ghosh; Dilip Karmakar
Journal:  Adv Biomed Res       Date:  2014-10-07

6.  Impact of ureteric stent on outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: A propensity score analysis.

Authors:  Krystian Kaczmarek; Adam Gołąb; Marcin Słojewski
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2016-04-08

7.  Ureteral stenting can be a negative predictor for successful outcome following shock wave lithotripsy in patients with ureteral stones.

Authors:  Dong Hyuk Kang; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Ham; Doo Yong Chung; Jong Kyou Kwon; Young Deuk Choi; Joo Yong Lee
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2016-10-24

8.  Double J stent reduces the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of lumbar ureteral stones.

Authors:  Caroline Pettenati; Amine Benchikh El Fegoun; Vincent Hupertan; Sébastien Dominique; Vincent Ravery
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2013-11-18

9.  Spectrum of urinary stone composition in Northwestern Rajasthan using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy.

Authors:  Amilal Bhat; Vikash Singh; Mahakshit Bhat; Vinay Kumar; Akshita Bhat
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2018 Apr-Jun

10.  Miniature semi-rigid ureteroscopy with holmium-yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser vs shockwave lithotripsy in the management of upper urinary tract stones >1 cm in children.

Authors:  Mohamed Omran; Ahmed Sakr; Esam A E Desoky; Maged M Ali; Mohamed M H Abdalla
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2020-03-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.