Literature DB >> 17499914

Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy in the 21st century.

Athanasios N Argyropoulos1, David A Tolley.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has radically changed treatment of stone disease and appears to be the first option for the majority of patients. This review of current literature focused on suggestions for optimising technique, patient selection, results, and lithotriptor comparison for SWL.
METHODS: Literature search for SWL was performed for recently published papers in English language. Topics of interest were treatment protocols; patient evaluation; pre-SWL prediction of outcome; lithotriptor technology; efficacy; and methods to assess the effects, decrease complications, and compare lithotriptors. Earlier classic papers on SWL and guidelines for stone disease were also reviewed.
RESULTS: Recent literature contained important recommendations about SWL concerning (1) methods to predict stone fragmentation; (2) identification of factors contributing to treatment failure for lower pole and ureteric calculi; (3) guidelines from urological associations; (4) manoeuvres and changes in SWL delivery (slower rate, twin-pulse technique) to increase efficacy and decrease complications; (5) clarification of the role of medical treatment (antibiotics, alpha-blockers); (6) role of SWL in calyceal stones, CIRF, and abnormal kidneys; (7) obesity and SWL; and (8) methods to evaluate and compare lithotriptors.
CONCLUSIONS: SWL delivered in an outpatient setting as an anaesthesia-free treatment is still considered the first option for the majority of stones with a minimal number of complications. Better understanding of the physics of shockwave delivery is required, together with treatment optimisation by limiting renal damage and better selection of patients because this approach will offer maximum benefit to patients and physicians, as well as more cost-effective treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17499914     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.04.066

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  20 in total

1.  Evaluating ESWL-induced renal injury based on urinary TNF-α, IL-1α, and IL-6 levels.

Authors:  Cemal Goktas; Abdurrahman Coskun; Zerrin Bicik; Rahim Horuz; Ibrahim Unsal; Mustafa Serteser; Selami Albayrak; Kemal Sarıca
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2012-10

2.  High-frequency jet ventilation is beneficial during shock wave lithotripsy utilizing a newer unit with a narrower focal zone.

Authors:  Phillip Mucksavage; Wesley A Mayer; Jeff E Mandel; Keith N Van Arsdalen
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Shock wave lithotripsy is not predictive of hypertension among community stone formers at long-term followup.

Authors:  Amy E Krambeck; Andrew D Rule; Xujian Li; Eric J Bergstralh; Matthew T Gettman; John C Lieske
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-11-13       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 4.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of new onset hypertension after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Cui Yu; Liu Longfei; Wang Long; Zeng Feng; Niu Jiping; Li Mao; Qi Lin; Chen Hequn
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-10-27       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 5.  New-onset diabetes mellitus after shock wave lithotripsy for urinary stone: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tuo Deng; Banghua Liao; Ye Tian; Deyi Luo; Jiaming Liu; Tao Jin; Kunjie Wang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  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

Review 7.  Targeted microbubbles: a novel application for the treatment of kidney stones.

Authors:  Krishna Ramaswamy; Vanessa Marx; Daniel Laser; Thomas Kenny; Thomas Chi; Michael Bailey; Mathew D Sorensen; Robert H Grubbs; Marshall L Stoller
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  How effective is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones with Dornier Lithotripter S EMSE 220F-XXP? A prospective and preliminary assessment.

Authors:  Maria Chiara Sighinolfi; Salvatore Micali; Stefano De Stefani; Giovanni Alberto Pini; Massimo Rivalta; Filippo Cianci; Giampaolo Bianchi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Does the use of doxazosin influence the success of SWL in the treatment of upper ureteral stones? A multicenter, prospective and randomized study.

Authors:  Ferhat Ateş; Bilal Eryıldırım; Metin Ishak Öztürk; Turgay Turan; Cenk Gürbüz; Mete Oğuz Ekinci; Asıf Yıldırım; Cemal Göktaş; Temuçin Şenkul; Kemal Sarıca
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2012-01-07

10.  Effect of high shock number on acute complication development after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Miriam Hadj-Moussa; James A Brown
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 2.942

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.