Literature DB >> 16502054

Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones.

Abdulla Al-Ansari1, Khalid As-Sadiq, Sami Al-Said, Nagy Younis, Osama A Jaleel, Ahmed A Shokeir.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the factors that affect the success rate of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2000 and December 2003, 427 patients with single or multiple renal stones (< 30 mm, largest diameter) underwent ESWL monotherapy using Storz SL 20 lithotriptor. The results of treatment were evaluated after 3 months of follow-up. Treatment success was defined as complete clearance of the stones or presence of clinically insignificant residual fragments < 4 mm. The success rate was correlated with the characteristics of the patients, conditions of the urinary tract and stone features.
RESULTS: At 3-month follow-up, the overall success rate was 333/427 (78%). Repeat treatment was needed in 226 patients (53.1%). Post-ESWL auxiliary procedures were required in 36 patients (8.4%). Post-ESWL complications were recorded in 16 patients (3.7%). Of the 10 prognostic factors studied, 5 had a significant impact on the success rate, namely: renal morphology, congenital anomalies, stone size, stone site and number of treated stones. Other factors including age, sex, nationality, stone nature (de novo or recurrent) and ureteric stenting had no significant impact on the success rate.
CONCLUSIONS: The success rate of ESWL for the treatment of renal stones could be predicted by stone size, location and number, radiological renal features and congenital renal anomalies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16502054     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-005-3155-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0301-1623            Impact factor:   2.370


  11 in total

1.  Stone fragmentation during shock wave lithotripsy is improved by slowing the shock wave rate: studies with a new animal model.

Authors:  Ryan F Paterson; David A Lifshitz; James E Lingeman; Andrew P Evan; Bret A Connors; Naomi S Fineberg; James C Williams; James A McAteer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 2.  Management of calyceal calculi.

Authors:  T D Cohen; G M Preminger
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 2.241

3.  Variation in clinical outcome following shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  N F Logarakis; M A Jewett; J Luymes; R J Honey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Prediction of lower pole stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy using an artificial neural network.

Authors:  Vassilis Poulakis; Philipp Dahm; Ulrich Witzsch; Rachelle de Vries; Jochem Remplik; Eduard Becht
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis.

Authors:  J E Lingeman; Y I Siegel; B Steele; A W Nyhuis; J R Woods
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  The Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter: the first 500 renal calculi.

Authors:  Nestor J Lalak; Sami A Moussa; Gordon Smith; David A Tolley
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Is lower pole caliceal anatomy predictive of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success for primary lower pole kidney stones?

Authors:  Carsten M Sorensen; Paramjit S Chandhoke
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Prediction of success rate after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of renal stones--a multivariate analysis model.

Authors:  Mohamed Abdel-Khalek; Khaled Z Sheir; Alaa A Mokhtar; Ibrahiem Eraky; Mahmoud Kenawy; Mahmoud Bazeed
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol       Date:  2004

9.  Computerized tomography attenuation value of renal calculus: can it predict successful fragmentation of the calculus by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A preliminary study.

Authors:  Peter Joseph; A K Mandal; S K Singh; Purabi Mandal; S N Sankhwar; S K Sharma
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Prognosis after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of radiopaque renal calculi: a multivariate analysis.

Authors:  D K Ackermann; R Fuhrimann; D Pfluger; U E Studer; E J Zingg
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  17 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

2.  Is the gravity effect of radiographic anatomic features enough to justify stone clearance or fragments retention following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL).

Authors:  Mahmoud Mustafa
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2011-08-17

3.  The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones.

Authors:  Vera Y Chung; Benjamin W Turney
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Pre- and perioperative predictors of short-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy.

Authors:  Peter J Olbert; Axel Hegele; Andres J Schrader; André Scherag; Rainer Hofmann
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2007-09-05

5.  Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones.

Authors:  Okan Bas; Hasan Bakirtas; Nevzat Can Sener; Ufuk Ozturk; Can Tuygun; H N Goksel Goktug; M Abdurrahim Imamoglu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-10-27       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones.

Authors:  Berkan Resorlu; Ali Unsal; Tevfik Ziypak; Akif Diri; Gokhan Atis; Selcuk Guven; Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Omer Faruk Bozkurt; Derya Oztuna
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Management of Clinically Insignificant Residual Fragments following Shock Wave Lithotripsy.

Authors:  Elisa Cicerello; Franco Merlo; Luigi Maccatrozzo
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2012-05-31

8.  Factors Affecting the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy in Urinary Stone Treatment.

Authors:  Sanjay Shinde; Younis Al Balushi; Medhat Hossny; Sachin Jose; Salma Al Busaidy
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2018-05

9.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for management of residual stones after ureterolithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Zhichao Huang; Xiaokun Zhao; Lei Zhang; Zhaohui Zhong; Ran Xu; Lianping Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: What is new?

Authors:  Christian Bach; Theocharis Karaolides; Noor Buchholz
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2012-05-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.