OBJECTIVES: In the present study, we investigated the effects of the Body Mass Index (BMI), the Body Fat Percentage (BFP), and the Body Fat Mass (BFM) on success of SWL, prospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The BMI, BFP, BFM values of patients, who were treated by SWL due to upper urinary system stone disease (pelvis renalis, upper ureter, kidney lower and upper calices) between January and December 2005 in our hospital's urolithiasis center, were measured. Patients with stones smaller than 5 mm or larger than 20 mm and patients who had a stone localized somewhere other than in the upper urinary system, were not included in the study. Patients evaluated to be clinically successful according to the SWL were put in group 1, and the other patients who were not successful were included in group 2. RESULTS: About 158 (97 male, 61 female) patients aged between 16 and 92 (mean 36.69 (+/-13.22) years), put on SWL therapy due to presence of upper urinary system stone disease, were included in the study. While the mean BMI was 23.97 +/- 0.4 in group 1 and 25.98 +/- 0.5 (P = 0.02) in group 2, BFP was 23.85 +/- 0.8 in group 1 and 29.19 +/- 1.1 (P = 0.001) in group 2, and BFM was determined to be 16.74 +/- 0.7 and 21.19 +/- 1.01 (P = 0.001) in group 2. Regarding all the parameters (BMI, BFP, BFM), the statistical analyses carried out between the groups showed significant differences. CONCLUSION: BFP and BFM parameters are also important factors along with the BMI in providing a successful SWL treatment. All the parameters should be considered regarding the success of the treatment and the patients should be informed.
OBJECTIVES: In the present study, we investigated the effects of the Body Mass Index (BMI), the Body Fat Percentage (BFP), and the Body Fat Mass (BFM) on success of SWL, prospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The BMI, BFP, BFM values of patients, who were treated by SWL due to upper urinary system stone disease (pelvis renalis, upper ureter, kidney lower and upper calices) between January and December 2005 in our hospital's urolithiasis center, were measured. Patients with stones smaller than 5 mm or larger than 20 mm and patients who had a stone localized somewhere other than in the upper urinary system, were not included in the study. Patients evaluated to be clinically successful according to the SWL were put in group 1, and the other patients who were not successful were included in group 2. RESULTS: About 158 (97 male, 61 female) patients aged between 16 and 92 (mean 36.69 (+/-13.22) years), put on SWL therapy due to presence of upper urinary system stone disease, were included in the study. While the mean BMI was 23.97 +/- 0.4 in group 1 and 25.98 +/- 0.5 (P = 0.02) in group 2, BFP was 23.85 +/- 0.8 in group 1 and 29.19 +/- 1.1 (P = 0.001) in group 2, and BFM was determined to be 16.74 +/- 0.7 and 21.19 +/- 1.01 (P = 0.001) in group 2. Regarding all the parameters (BMI, BFP, BFM), the statistical analyses carried out between the groups showed significant differences. CONCLUSION: BFP and BFM parameters are also important factors along with the BMI in providing a successful SWL treatment. All the parameters should be considered regarding the success of the treatment and the patients should be informed.
Authors: Ryan F Paterson; David A Lifshitz; Ramsay L Kuo; Tibério M Siqueira; James E Lingeman Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2002 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Gregorio Milani; Mario G Bianchetti; Sofia Bozzani; Alberto Bettinelli; Emilio F Fossali Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2009-03-13 Impact factor: 2.370