Literature DB >> 17070254

Does rate matter? The results of a randomized controlled trial of 60 versus 120 shocks per minute for shock wave lithotripsy of renal calculi.

Kim Davenport1, Andrea Minervini, Stephen Keoghane, John Parkin, Francis X Keeley, Anthony G Timoney.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In this study we prospectively compared 2 rates of shock wave delivery, 60 and 120 shock waves per minute, to determine whether rate affects outcome with the Dornier Lithotripter S, a lithotriptor with an electromagnetic shock wave source, for renal calculi.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 104 patients with uncomplicated single renal calculus were randomized and treated. Following a single treatment patients were reviewed at 3 months to determine outcome. A plain abdominal x-ray was performed and the size of any residual fragments was noted. Four patients were lost to followup, 1 in the 60 shock waves per minute group and 3 in the 120 shock waves per minute group.
RESULTS: Of the 100 patients with complete followup 49 were treated at 60 shock waves per minute and 51 at 120 shock waves per minute. There was no statistically significant difference between mean stone area treated (p = 0.32) or additional analgesic use in the form of patient controlled alfentanil (p = 0.82). A successful outcome was defined by fragments smaller than 4 mm or stone-free status. At 60 shock waves per minute 59% of patients had a successful outcome compared with 61% at 120 shock waves per minute (p = 0.87) following a single treatment. Post-treatment complications were similar in both groups at 8% for 120 shock waves per minute and 10% for 60 shock waves per minute (p = 0.68).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in patient controlled analgesia use, complications or outcome between rates 60 and 120. Contrary to previous studies these results suggest that a slower rate of shock wave delivery during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal calculi does not improve treatment efficacy with the Dornier Lithotripter S.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17070254     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.012

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


  15 in total

Review 1.  Kidney stones.

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

2.  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

3.  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

Review 4.  Kidney stones.

Authors:  Ranan Dasgupta; Jonathan Glass; Jonathon Olsburgh
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2009-04-21

Review 5.  Recent advances in lithotripsy technology and treatment strategies: A systematic review update.

Authors:  H E Elmansy; J E Lingeman
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 6.071

Review 6.  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

Review 7.  Shockwave lithotripsy: techniques for improving outcomes.

Authors:  Tadeusz Kroczak; Kymora B Scotland; Ben Chew; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Canadian Urological Association guideline: Management of ureteral calculi - Abridged version.

Authors:  Jason Y Lee; Sero Andonian; Naeem Bhojani; Jennifer Bjazevic; Ben H Chew; Shubha De; Hazem Elmansy; Andrea G Lantz-Powers; Kenneth T Pace; Trevor D Schuler; Rajiv K Singal; Peter Wang; Michael Ordon
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Noninvasive management of obstructing ureteral stones using electromagnetic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  M C Sighinolfi; S M Chiara; S Micali; M Salvatore; S De Stefani; D S Stefano; G Saredi; A Mofferdin; M Grande; G Bianchi; B Giampaolo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-02-13       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review.

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.