Literature DB >> 16006908

Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial.

Kenneth T Pace1, Daniela Ghiculete, Melanie Harju, R John D'A Honey.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The rate of shock wave administration is a factor in the per shock efficiency of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Experimental evidence suggests that decreasing shock wave frequency from 120 shocks per minute results in improved stone fragmentation. To our knowledge this study is the first to examine the effect of decreased shock wave frequency in patients with renal stones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated radiopaque stones in the renal collecting system were randomized to SWL at 60 or 120 shocks per minute. They were followed at 2 weeks and 3 months. The primary outcome was the success rate, defined as stone-free status or asymptomatic fragments less than 5 mm 3 months after treatment.
RESULTS: A total of 220 patients were randomized, including 111 to 60 shocks per minute and 109 to 120 shocks per minute. The 2 groups were comparable in regard to age, sex, body mass index, stent status and initial stone area. The success rate was higher for 60 shocks per minute (75% vs 61%, p = 0.027). Patients with larger stones (stone area 100 mm or greater) experienced a greater benefit with treatment at 60 shocks per minute. The success rate was 71% for 60 shocks per minute vs 32% (p = 0.002) and the stone-free rate was 60% vs 28% (p = 0.015). Repeat SWL was required in 32% of patients treated with 120 shocks per minute vs 18% (p = 0.018). Fewer shocks were required with 60 shocks per minute (2,423 vs 2,906, p <0.001) but treatment time was longer (40.6 vs 24.2 minutes, p <0.001). There was a trend toward fewer complications with 60 shocks per minute (p = 0.079).
CONCLUSIONS: SWL treatment at 60 shocks per minute yields better outcomes than at 120 shocks per minute, particularly for stones 100 mm or greater, without any increase in morbidity and with an acceptable increase in treatment time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16006908     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000165156.90011.95

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


  49 in total

Review 1.  Kidney stones.

Authors:  Timothy Y Tseng; Glenn M Preminger
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2011-11-10

Review 2.  Aspects on how extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy should be carried out in order to be maximally effective.

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Christian G Chaussy
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2012-06-27

3.  Adjuncts to improve outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Peter L Steinberg; Steven Williams; David M Hoenig
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  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

5.  Why stones break better at slow shockwave rates than at fast rates: in vitro study with a research electrohydraulic lithotripter.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Irina V Pishchalnikova; R Jason Vonderhaar
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 6.  The acute and long-term adverse effects of shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  James A McAteer; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Semin Nephrol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.299

7.  Treating lower pole renal stones: in defence of shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  John Honey
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  Acoustic bubble removal to enhance SWL efficacy at high shock rate: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Alexander P Duryea; William W Roberts; Charles A Cain; Hedieh A Tamaddoni; Timothy L Hall
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Some Work on the Diagnosis and Management of Kidney Stones with Ultrasound.

Authors:  Julianna C Simon; Adam D Maxwell; Michael R Bailey
Journal:  Acoust Today       Date:  2017

Review 10.  Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique.

Authors:  James E Lingeman; James A McAteer; Ehud Gnessin; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.