Literature DB >> 19683303

A randomized, double-blind trial to compare shock wave frequencies of 60 and 120 shocks per minute for upper ureteral stones.

R J D'A Honey1, T D Schuler, D Ghiculete, K T Pace.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Recent evidence demonstrates that decreasing shock wave frequency from the previous standard of 120 to 60 shocks per minute results in improved fragmentation of stones located within the renal collecting system. We report the first randomized trial to our knowledge to examine the effect of a slower shock wave frequency for shock wave lithotripsy on stones located in the proximal ureter.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 163 patients with a previously untreated radiopaque calculus in the upper ureter measuring at least 5 mm underwent stratified block randomization according to stone size, and shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute. Stone-free status at 3 months was confirmed with noncontrast computerized tomography or a plain abdominal x-ray and ultrasound study.
RESULTS: Of the patients 77 were randomized to 60 shocks per minute and 86 were randomized to 120 shocks per minute. The groups were similar in gender, age, body mass index and initial stone area. At 3 months the 60 shocks per minute group had a higher overall stone-free rate (64.9% vs 48.8%, p = 0.039). Significantly fewer shocks were administered to patients treated at 60 shocks per minute (mean 2,680 vs 2,940, p <0.001). However, mean treatment times were longer (44.3 vs 24.5 minutes, p <0.001). Patients treated with 60 shocks per minute required fewer auxiliary procedures (29.9% vs 45.4%) (p = 0.031).
CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing the rate of shock wave administration from 120 to 60 shocks per minute results in improved stone-free rates. A slower treatment rate of proximal ureteral stones reduces the need for additional shock wave lithotripsy or more invasive treatments to render patients stone-free, without any increase in morbidity, and with an acceptable increase in treatment time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19683303     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.06.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  16 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.  CUA Guideline: Management of ureteral calculi.

Authors:  Michael Ordon; Sero Andonian; Brian Blew; Trevor Schuler; Ben Chew; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy: Current Perspectives and Future Directions.

Authors:  Andrew C Lawler; Eric M Ghiraldi; Carmen Tong; Justin I Friedlander
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Recent advances in lithotripsy technology and treatment strategies: A systematic review update.

Authors:  H E Elmansy; J E Lingeman
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 6.071

5.  Optimising an escalating shockwave amplitude treatment strategy to protect the kidney from injury during shockwave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Rajash K Handa; James A McAteer; Bret A Connors; Ziyue Liu; James E Lingeman; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 6.  Shockwave lithotripsy: techniques for improving outcomes.

Authors:  Tadeusz Kroczak; Kymora B Scotland; Ben Chew; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Canadian Urological Association guideline: Management of ureteral calculi - Abridged version.

Authors:  Jason Y Lee; Sero Andonian; Naeem Bhojani; Jennifer Bjazevic; Ben H Chew; Shubha De; Hazem Elmansy; Andrea G Lantz-Powers; Kenneth T Pace; Trevor D Schuler; Rajiv K Singal; Peter Wang; Michael Ordon
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  Canadian Urological Association guideline: Management of ureteral calculi - Full-text.

Authors:  Jason Y Lee; Sero Andonian; Naeem Bhojani; Jennifer Bjazevic; Ben H Chew; Shubha De; Hazem Elmansy; Andrea G Lantz-Powers; Kenneth T Pace; Trevor D Schuler; Rajiv K Singal; Peter Wang; Michael Ordon
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Paul D McClain; Jessica N Lange; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2013

10.  Comparison between two shock wave regimens using frequencies of 60 and 90 impulses per minute for urinary stones.

Authors:  Eduardo Mazzucchi; Artur H Brito; Alexandre Danilovic; Gustavo X Ebaid; Elias Chedid Neto; José Reinaldo Franco de Azevedo; Miguel Srougi
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.365

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.