Literature DB >> 18674803

Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy.

Alexandra E Perks1, Trevor D Schuler, Jason Lee, Daniela Ghiculete, Dae-Gyun Chung, R John D'A Honey, Kenneth T Pace.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether stone attenuation and the skin-to-stone distance (SSD) can predict for stone fragmentation by SWL independently. Identifying the factors predictive of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) outcome would help streamline the care of patients with stones.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 111 patients undergoing initial SWL for a solitary, 5-20 mm, renal calculus. Stone size, location, attenuation value, and SSD were determined on pretreatment noncontrast computed tomography. The outcome was categorized as stone free, complete fragmentation <5 mm, and incomplete fragmentation >or=5 mm or unchanged at 2 weeks on kidney/ureter/bladder radiography.
RESULTS: After SWL, 44 (40%) were stone free, 27 (24%) had complete fragmentation, and 40 (36%) of 111 patients had incomplete fragmentation. The stone attenuation of the successfully treated patients (stone free and complete fragmentation groups) was 837 +/- 277 Hounsfield units (HU) vs 1092 +/- 254 HU for those with treatment failure (incomplete fragmentation; P < .01). The mean SSD also differed: 9.6 cm +/- 2.0 vs 11.1 cm +/- 2.5 for the successful treatment group vs the treatment failure group, respectively (P = .01). On multivariate analysis, the factors that independently predicted the outcome were stone attenuation, SSD, and stone composition. When patients were stratified into 4 risk groups (stone <900 HU and SSD <9.0 cm, stone <900 HU and SSD >or=9.0 cm, stone >or=900 HU and SSD <9.0 cm, and stone >or=900 HU and SSD >or=9.0 cm), the SWL success rate was 91%, 79%, 58%, and 41%, respectively (odds ratio 7.1, 95% confidence interval 1.6-32 for <900 HU and SSD <9.0 cm group vs other 3 risk groups; P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study have shown that a stone attenuation of <900 HU, SSD of <9 cm, and stone composition predict for SWL success, independent of stone size, location, and body mass index. These factors will be considered important in the prospective design of a SWL treatment nomogram at our center.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18674803     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.05.046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  51 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

Review 2.  Assessment of stone composition in the management of urinary stones.

Authors:  Kittinut Kijvikai; J J M de la Rosette
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Obesity and Kidney Stone Procedures.

Authors:  Nikhi P Singh; Carter J Boyd; William Poore; Kyle Wood; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2020

4.  The usefulness of the maximum Hounsfield units (HU) in predicting the shockwave lithotripsy outcome for ureteral stones and the proposal of novel indicators using the maximum HU.

Authors:  Yusuke Sugino; Takahiro Kato; Shigeru Furuya; Takeshi Sasaki; Kiminobu Arima; Yoshiki Sugimura
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Evaluating the importance of mean stone density and skin-to-stone distance in predicting successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteric calculi.

Authors:  Joshua D Wiesenthal; Daniela Ghiculete; R John D'A Honey; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-07-13

6.  Modified Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity score for retrograde intrarenal surgery.

Authors:  Jin-Woo Jung; Byung Ki Lee; Yong Hyun Park; Sangchul Lee; Seong Jin Jeong; Sang Eun Lee; Chang Wook Jeong
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 3.436

7.  Factors influencing urologist treatment preference in surgical management of stone disease.

Authors:  M Adam Childs; Laureano J Rangel; James E Lingeman; Amy E Krambeck
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-01-13       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  The feasibility of shockwave lithotripsy for treating solitary, lower calyceal stones over 1 cm in size.

Authors:  Tae Beom Kim; Sang Cheol Lee; Khae Hawn Kim; Han Jung; Sang Jin Yoon; Jin Kyu Oh
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 9.  Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique.

Authors:  James E Lingeman; James A McAteer; Ehud Gnessin; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 10.  Ureteroscopy for the management of stone disease.

Authors:  Brian H Eisner; Michael P Kurtz; Stephen P Dretler
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.