Literature DB >> 12050487

Comparison of intravenous sedation versus general anesthesia on the efficacy of the Doli 50 lithotriptor.

Carsten Sorensen1, Paramjit Chandhoke, Michael Moore, Connie Wolf, Ali Sarram.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared the impact of intravenous sedation versus general anesthesia on the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From November 1997 to May 1998, 295 patients with a single renal or upper ureteral radioopaque stone of less than 2 cm. were treated with the Doli 50 lithotriptor (Dornier Medical Systems, Marietta, Georgia). The treating anesthesiologist and patient together elected intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. Of the 92 patients 60 (65%) treated under intravenous sedation and 126 of the 203 (62%) treated under general anesthesia had 3-month followup records available for review. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy was considered a failure if residual stone fragments remained after 3 months, or an auxiliary procedure or re-treatment was required.
RESULTS: At 3 months the stone-free rate in patients treated under intravenous sedation was 55% compared with 87% in those treated under general anesthesia (p <0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in treatment time or the power index in the 2 groups. Stone size (1 to 10 versus 11 to 20 mm.) did not significantly affect the anesthesia specific stone-free rate.
CONCLUSIONS: For single renal or upper ureteral stones less than 2 cm. a significantly better 3-month stone-free rate is achieved with the Doli 50 lithotriptor when general anesthesia is used instead of intravenous sedation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12050487

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


  8 in total

1.  Characteristics and treatment outcome of patients requiring additional intravenous analgesia during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy with Dornier Compact Delta Lithotriptor.

Authors:  Chi-Fai Ng; Trevor Thompson; David Tolley
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2007-02-24       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  Strategies to optimize shock wave lithotripsy outcome: Patient selection and treatment parameters.

Authors:  Michelle Jo Semins; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2015-05-06

Review 4.  Shock wave technology and application: an update.

Authors:  Jens J Rassweiler; Thomas Knoll; Kai-Uwe Köhrmann; James A McAteer; James E Lingeman; Robin O Cleveland; Michael R Bailey; Christian Chaussy
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-02-23       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  How to improve results with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Brian R Matlaga; Michelle J Semins
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2009-06

6.  Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Paul D McClain; Jessica N Lange; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2013

7.  The Influence of Pain on the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy.

Authors:  Elke Bovelander; Saskia Weltings; Mandana Rad; Paulien van Kampen; Rob C M Pelger; Hossain Roshani
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2019-03-08

8.  Efficacy of pethidine, ketorolac, and lidocaine gel as analgesics for pain control in shockwave lithotripsy: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Abdelwahab Hashem; Fady K Ghobrial; M A Elbaset; Ahmed M Atwa; Mohamed Fadallah; Mahmoud Laymon; Ahmed El-Assmy; Khaled Z Sheir; Hassan Abol-Enein
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2019-05-29
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.