OBJECTIVES: To clarify the influences of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) treatments for renal and ureteropelvic junction stones on new onsets of hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: We compared the new onsets of hypertension and DM after SWL in renal and ureteral stone groups. The renal stone group consisted of 772 patients treated with SWL, who had a possibility of renal and pancreatic shock wave damage. The ureteral stone group consisted of 505 patients treated with SWL, who were unlikely to have suffered SWL damage in the kidney and pancreas areas. Both treatment groups received SWL between 1984 and 1994. RESULTS: The rates of new onset of hypertension in the renal stone and ureteral stone groups were 22.8% and 20.0% in men and 23.1% and 20.5% in women, respectively. The rates of new onset of DM in the renal stone and ureteral stone groups were 7.4% and 11.0% in men and 8.7% and 8.7% in women, respectively. There was no significant difference in the new onsets of hypertension and DM between renal and ureteral stone groups depending on each age decade or sex. Treatment for renal stone was not a significant risk factor for new onsets of hypertension and DM by logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that SWL treatment for renal and UPJ stones might not be associated with new onset of hypertension or DM.
OBJECTIVES: To clarify the influences of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) treatments for renal and ureteropelvic junction stones on new onsets of hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: We compared the new onsets of hypertension and DM after SWL in renal and ureteral stone groups. The renal stone group consisted of 772 patients treated with SWL, who had a possibility of renal and pancreatic shock wave damage. The ureteral stone group consisted of 505 patients treated with SWL, who were unlikely to have suffered SWL damage in the kidney and pancreas areas. Both treatment groups received SWL between 1984 and 1994. RESULTS: The rates of new onset of hypertension in the renal stone and ureteral stone groups were 22.8% and 20.0% in men and 23.1% and 20.5% in women, respectively. The rates of new onset of DM in the renal stone and ureteral stone groups were 7.4% and 11.0% in men and 8.7% and 8.7% in women, respectively. There was no significant difference in the new onsets of hypertension and DM between renal and ureteral stone groups depending on each age decade or sex. Treatment for renal stone was not a significant risk factor for new onsets of hypertension and DM by logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that SWL treatment for renal and UPJ stones might not be associated with new onset of hypertension or DM.
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
Authors: Wonngarm Kittanamongkolchai; Kristin C Mara; Ramila A Mehta; Lisa E Vaughan; Aleksandar Denic; John J Knoedler; Felicity T Enders; John C Lieske; Andrew D Rule Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Rajash K Handa; Andrew P Evan; Bret A Connors; Cynthia D Johnson; Ziyue Liu; Mouhamad Alloosh; Michael Sturek; Carmella Evans-Molina; Jessica A Mandeville; Ehud Gnessin; James E Lingeman Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 7.450
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
Authors: Mitra de Cógáin; Amy E Krambeck; Andrew D Rule; Xujian Li; Eric J Bergstralh; Matthew T Gettman; John C Lieske Journal: Urology Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 2.649