Literature DB >> 17851280

Clinical predictors of stone fragmentation using slow-rate shock wave lithotripsy.

Wei-Ming Li1, Wen-Jeng Wu, Yii-Her Chou, Chia-Chu Liu, Chii-Jye Wang, Chun-Hsiung Huang, Yung-Chin Lee.   

Abstract

AIM: To determine efficacy and clinical predictors of stone fragmentation when using slow-rate shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 116 patients with radiopaque urinary tract stones were randomized into two groups: 57 patients were treated with SWL at 90 shocks/min, and 59 patients were treated with SWL at 120 shocks/min. The efficacy of SWL was evaluated within 1 month after treatment. Patient characteristics, features of stones, and SWL conditions were reviewed. Success rates relating to individual parameters were assessed by using chi-square and Student t tests. All factors were further entered into multivariate logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to age, sex, site and size of the stones, renal function, and total number of shock waves. In univariate analysis, the success rate was significantly related to shock wave frequency (p = 0.023), length and width of the stones (p < 0.001), total number of shock waves (p = 0.047), and age (p = 0.049). In multivariate analysis, however, only shock wave rate and stone length remained statistically significant (p = 0.021 and p = 0.046, respectively). The overall success rate was significantly higher in the group treated with 90 shocks/min (p = 0.02). However, this higher success rate was statistically significant only in patients with a stone length > or = 10 mm (50.0 vs. 18.5%, p = 0.019).
CONCLUSION: SWL at 90 shocks/min yielded better outcomes than SWL at 120 shocks/min, particularly in patients with stone lengths > or = 10 mm. 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17851280     DOI: 10.1159/000106324

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Int        ISSN: 0042-1138            Impact factor:   2.089


  6 in total

Review 1.  Aspects on how extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy should be carried out in order to be maximally effective.

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Christian G Chaussy
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2012-06-27

2.  Comparison of intermediate- and low-frequency shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric kidney stones.

Authors:  Onur Kaygısız; Hakan Kılıçarslan; Ahmet Mert; Burhan Coşkun; Yakup Kordan
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-07-29       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Impact of previous SWL on ureterorenoscopy outcomes and optimal timing for ureterorenoscopy after SWL failure in proximal ureteral stones.

Authors:  Bora Irer; Mehmet Oguz Sahin; Oguzcan Erbatu; Alperen Yildiz; Sakir Ongun; Onder Cinar; Ahmet Cihan; Mehmet Sahin; Volkan Sen; Oktay Ucer; Fuat Kizilay; Ozan Bozkurt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Which frequency is better for pediatric shock wave lithotripsy? Intermediate or low: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Onur Kaygisiz; Mehmet Cagatay Cicek; Ahmet Mert; Selcan Akesen; Emre Sarandol; Hakan Kilicarslan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Extremely-slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for asymptomatic renal stones <20 mm.

Authors:  Katsuhiro Ito; Toshifumi Takahashi; Toru Kanno; Takashi Okada; Yoshihito Higashi; Hitoshi Yamada
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2020-12-03

Review 6.  Comparison of High, Intermediate, and Low Frequency Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Urinary Tract Stone Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Dong Hyuk Kang; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Ham; Hyungmin Lee; Jong Kyou Kwon; Young Deuk Choi; Joo Yong Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.