Literature DB >> 16426122

Single-center experience using three shockwave lithotripters with different generator designs in management of urinary calculi.

C F Ng1, T J Thompson, L McLornan, D A Tolley.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We retrospectively reviewed the treatment outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in a single center using either the Wolf Piezolith 2300 (a piezoelectric lithotripter), the Dornier MPL9000 (an electrohydraulic lithotripter), or the Dornier Compact Delta (an electromagnetic lithotripter) from January 1992 to June 2002. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 3123 (1449 Piezolith 2300, 780 MPL9000, and 894 Compact Delta) solitary radiopaque urinary stones of < or =15 mm receiving primary SWL were identified. "Stone free" was defined as the absence of evidence of stone on plain radiography. Treatment outcomes were assessed by the stone-free rate 3 months after one treatment session, the retreatment rate, the auxiliary procedure rate, the complication rate, and the effectiveness quotient (EQ). In order to have a better assessment of the efficacy of individual lithotripters, multiple logistic regression was performed to control various factors affecting treatment outcomes, including lithotripter-type, patients' sex and age, history of previous SWL, the stone characteristics (side, site, and size), and the presence of a stent or nephrostomy tube.
RESULTS: There were significant differences in the stone site distribution and mean stone size among the three groups. The overall EQ for the Piezolith 2300, MPL9000, and Compact Delta were 0.345, 0.303, and 0.257, respectively. However, using the multiple logistic regression model, the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of a patient being stone-free after 3 month for the Piezolith 2300 and MPL9000 (using the Compact Delta as the referent category) were 1.38 (95% CI 1.15, 1.65) and 1.72 (95% CI 1.39, 2.11), respectively. Patients treated using the MPL9000 had significantly less re-treatment (AOR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.48, 0.69) than the other groups. No significant difference in the auxiliary procedure rate and complication rate for the three machines was observed.
CONCLUSION: Based on multivariate analysis results, the Dornier MPL9000 had the best treatment outcomes in terms of stone-free rate and re-treatment rate among the three lithotripters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16426122     DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.20.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  9 in total

1.  In Vitro Assessment of Three Clinical Lithotripters Employing Different Shock Wave Generators.

Authors:  Stuart Roy Faragher; Robin O Cleveland; Sunil Kumar; Oliver J Wiseman; Benjamin W Turney
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 2.942

2.  Evaluation of shock wave lithotripsy injury in the pig using a narrow focal zone lithotriptor.

Authors:  Bret A Connors; James A McAteer; Andrew P Evan; Philip M Blomgren; Rajash K Handa; Cynthia D Johnson; Sujuan Gao; Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James E Lingeman
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-04-23       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  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

4.  Lithotripter outcomes in a community practice setting: comparison of an electromagnetic and an electrohydraulic lithotripter.

Authors:  Naeem Bhojani; Jessica A Mandeville; Tariq A Hameed; Trevor M Soergel; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Amy E Krambeck; James E Lingeman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Effect of anxiety and pain on success of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for treatment of proximal ureteral and renal pelvic stones.

Authors:  Oktay Ucer; Yasin Ceylan; Fatih Ekren; Erol Ozan; Talha Muezzinoglu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Novel instrumentation in urologic surgery: Shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Michelle J Semins; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2010-07

7.  Comparison between two shock wave regimens using frequencies of 60 and 90 impulses per minute for urinary stones.

Authors:  Eduardo Mazzucchi; Artur H Brito; Alexandre Danilovic; Gustavo X Ebaid; Elias Chedid Neto; José Reinaldo Franco de Azevedo; Miguel Srougi
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.365

8.  The effect of renal cortical thickness on the treatment outcomes of kidney stones treated with shockwave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Chi-Fai Ng; Sylvia Luke; Peter K F Chiu; Jeremy Y C Teoh; Ka-Tak Wong; Simon S M Hou
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-04-28

9.  Comparison of safety and outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy between elderly and non-elderly patients.

Authors:  Yi-Zhong Chen; Wun-Rong Lin; Chih-Chiao Lee; Fang-Ju Sun; Yung-Chiong Chow; Wei-Kung Tsai; Pai-Kai Chiang; Ting-Po Lin; Marcelo Chen; Allen W Chiu
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 4.458

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.