OBJECTIVES: This study compared the efficacy and safety profile of electrohydraulic (EH) and electromagnetic (EM) lithotriptors in the treatment of 10- to 20-mm renal and proximal ureteric stones at a single center and by a single operator. METHODS: Between January 2001 and December 2006, we sequentially treated patients meeting study inclusion criteria with MPL 9000 Dornier EH for the first 3 years, followed by the EM Siemens Modularis shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) unit. A single operator performed all SWL treatments under the supervision of an admitting urologist. We analyzed the demographic features and stone- and treatment-related parameters including complications for both groups. In each group, the stone-free rate and efficiency quotient was determined at 1-3 months. RESULTS: Of 274 patients, we sequentially treated 112 using the EH lithotriptor, and 162 the EM lithotriptor. The pre-SWL patients and stone-related parameters were similar in the two groups, except for diagnostic imaging modalities. The mean number of SWL sessions, need for ancillary procedure, retreatment rate, stone location, stone-free rate, and efficiency quotient were not significantly different between groups. The mean number of shockwaves required for complete fragmentation was 2977 and 6044 (P < .000) for the EH and EM groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Single center, single operator experience with two types of lithotriptor indicated that both are equally efficacious, with similar safety profiles. The only significant difference was that the EH lithotriptor required fewer shockwaves for fragmentation.
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the efficacy and safety profile of electrohydraulic (EH) and electromagnetic (EM) lithotriptors in the treatment of 10- to 20-mm renal and proximal ureteric stones at a single center and by a single operator. METHODS: Between January 2001 and December 2006, we sequentially treated patients meeting study inclusion criteria with MPL 9000 Dornier EH for the first 3 years, followed by the EM Siemens Modularis shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) unit. A single operator performed all SWL treatments under the supervision of an admitting urologist. We analyzed the demographic features and stone- and treatment-related parameters including complications for both groups. In each group, the stone-free rate and efficiency quotient was determined at 1-3 months. RESULTS: Of 274 patients, we sequentially treated 112 using the EH lithotriptor, and 162 the EM lithotriptor. The pre-SWL patients and stone-related parameters were similar in the two groups, except for diagnostic imaging modalities. The mean number of SWL sessions, need for ancillary procedure, retreatment rate, stone location, stone-free rate, and efficiency quotient were not significantly different between groups. The mean number of shockwaves required for complete fragmentation was 2977 and 6044 (P < .000) for the EH and EM groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Single center, single operator experience with two types of lithotriptor indicated that both are equally efficacious, with similar safety profiles. The only significant difference was that the EH lithotriptor required fewer shockwaves for fragmentation.
Authors: Mohammed S Al-Marhoon; Omar Shareef; Ismail S Al-Habsi; Ataalrahman S Al Balushi; Josephkunju Mathew; Krishna P Venkiteswaran Journal: Oman Med J Date: 2013-07