Literature DB >> 16286099

Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography.

Gyan Pareek1, Sean P Hedican, Fred T Lee, Stephen Y Nakada.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the skin-to-stone distance (SSD), body mass index (BMI), and Hounsfield unit (HU) density can be used as independent predictors of stone-free (SF) status after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) of lower pole kidney stones. No studies have evaluated the SSD by non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography (NCCT) as a predictor of SWL success. Studies have suggested that the BMI and HU density of urinary calculi on NCCT may predict the SF rate after SWL.
METHODS: The radiographs of 64 patients treated with SWL (DoliS lithotripter) from March 2000 to April 2004 with lower pole kidney stones measuring 0.5 to 1.5 cm on NCCT were reviewed. The average SSD was calculated by measuring three distances from the center of the stone to the skin (0 degrees, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees angles) on NCCT. The BMI and HU density were determined, and chemical analysis was performed on all stones. Radiographic assessment of the kidneys, ureter, and bladder at 6 weeks categorized patients into the SF or residual stone group. Logistic regression was fit, using SSD, BMI, and HU density as predictors, to assess the SF rates after SWL.
RESULTS: Of 64 patients, 30 were SF and 34 had residual stones. The mean SSD was 8.12 +/- 1.74 cm for the SF group versus 11.53 +/- 1.89 cm for the residual stone group (P <0.01). Logistic regression analysis revealed only SSD to be a significant predictor of outcome (odds ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.35, P <0.01). An SSD greater than 10 cm predicted treatment failure.
CONCLUSIONS: The SSD may predict the outcome after SWL of lower pole kidney stones. SWL in patients with an SSD greater than 10 cm is likely to fail. The use of the SSD may be transferable to the treatment of all urinary stones, regardless of location.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16286099     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.011

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


  78 in total

Review 1.  [Controversy on lower pole stones: monitor or intervene?].

Authors:  A Häcker; M S Michel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 0.639

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.  Obesity and Kidney Stone Procedures.

Authors:  Nikhi P Singh; Carter J Boyd; William Poore; Kyle Wood; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2020

4.  Evaluation of possible predictive variables for the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones.

Authors:  Yong Il Park; Ji Hyeong Yu; Luck Hee Sung; Chung Hee Noh; Jae Yong Chung
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2010-10-21

Review 5.  [Lower pole calyceal stones].

Authors:  U Nagele; T Knoll; D Schilling; M S Michel; A Stenzl
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  [Calyceal stones].

Authors:  C Netsch; A J Gross
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  Effect of the body wall on lithotripter shock waves.

Authors:  Guangyan Li; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Zachary C Berwick
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 2.942

8.  [Effect of the body mass index on outcomes of ureterorenoscopy for renal stones].

Authors:  F Schott; S Knipper; A K Orywal; A J Gross; C Netsch
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 0.639

9.  Turbulent water coupling in shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Jaclyn Lautz; Georgy Sankin; Pei Zhong
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Evaluation of the LithoGold LG-380 lithotripter: in vitro acoustic characterization and assessment of renal injury in the pig model.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Bret A Connors; Rajash K Handa; James E Lingeman; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 2.942

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.