Literature DB >> 20625891

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

Joshua D Wiesenthal1, Daniela Ghiculete, R John D'A Honey, Kenneth T Pace.   

Abstract

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is considered the first line treatment for the majority of patients with renal and ureteric calculi, with success rates from contemporary series varying from 60 to 90%. Success is dependent on many patient and stone-related factors. We conducted a retrospective analysis of mean stone CT density (MSD) and skin-to-stone distance (SSD) to determine their influence on the success of SWL of renal and ureteric calculi. Data from all patients treated at the St. Michael's Hospital Lithotripsy Unit from May 2004 to June 2009 were reviewed. Analysis was restricted to those patients with a pre-treatment non-contrast CT scan conducted at our center demonstrating a solitary renal or ureteric calculus < or =20 mm in maximal diameter. Successful treatment of renal stones was defined as those patients who were stone free or had asymptomatic, clinically insignificant residual fragments < or =4 mm in diameter, as measured by KUB X-ray, 3 months after a single SWL treatment. Successful treatment of ureteric stones was defined as being stone free on KUB X-ray, 2-weeks post-SWL. Demographic, stone, patient, treatment and follow-up data were collected from a prospective database and review of CT and KUB imaging by two independent urologists and one radiologist. Data were analyzed with logistic regression, Chi square analysis and ANOVA where appropriate. 422 patients (69.7% male) with a mean age of 51.4 years (SD 12.9) and mean BMI 27.0 kg/m(2) (SD 4.9) were analyzed. Mean stone size was 78.9 mm(2) (SD 77.3) for ureteral stones and 66.1 mm(2) (SD 63.2) for renal stones, with 95 (43.6%) of the renal stones located in the lower pole. The single-treatment success rates for ureteral and renal stones were 62.3% and 68.8%, respectively. On univariate analysis, predictors of SWL success, regardless of stone location, were age (p = 0.01), BMI (p = 0.01), stone size (p < 0.01), MSD (p < 0.01) and SSD (p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, MSD >900 HU (OR = 0.49, CI: 0.32-0.75) and SSD >110 mm (OR = 0.49, CI: 0.31-0.78) were both significant predictors of outcome. We have identified in a large series of renal and ureteric calculi that both MSD and SSD can reliably predict SWL outcomes. This data can be used in combination with other patient and stone-related factors to facilitate optimal treatment-based decisions and provide patients with more accurate single-treatment success rates for SWL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20625891     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-010-0295-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Res        ISSN: 0300-5623


  30 in total

1.  Body size, body composition, and fat distribution: a comparison of young New Zealand men of European, Pacific Island, and Asian Indian ethnicities.

Authors:  Elaine Rush; Lindsay Plank; Vishnu Chandu; Manaia Laulu; David Simmons; Boyd Swinburn; Chittaranjan Yajnik
Journal:  N Z Med J       Date:  2004-12-17

2.  Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography.

Authors:  Gyan Pareek; Sean P Hedican; Fred T Lee; Stephen Y Nakada
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.649

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

Authors:  Alexandra E Perks; Trevor D Schuler; Jason Lee; Daniela Ghiculete; Dae-Gyun Chung; R John D'A Honey; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Skin to stone distance is an independent predictor of stone-free status following shockwave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Trushar Patel; Kristin Kozakowski; Greg Hruby; Mantu Gupta
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial.

Authors:  Kenneth T Pace; Daniela Ghiculete; Melanie Harju; R John D'A Honey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 6.  Progress in the use of helical CT for imaging urinary calculi.

Authors:  James C Williams; Samuel C Kim; Chad A Zarse; James A McAteer; James E Lingeman
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large-scale study at a single institution.

Authors:  Taku Abe; Koichiro Akakura; Makoto Kawaguchi; Takeshi Ueda; Tomohiko Ichikawa; Haruo Ito; Kuniyoshi Nozumi; Kazuhiro Suzuki
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.942

8.  Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Kent Kanao; Jun Nakashima; Ken Nakagawa; Hirotaka Asakura; Akira Miyajima; Mototsugu Oya; Takashi Ohigashi; Masaru Murai
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  University of Wisconsin experience using the Doli S lithotriptor.

Authors:  D Brooke Johnson; Patrick S Lowry; Joy A Schluckebier; John V Kryger; Stephen Y Nakada
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Stone measurement by volumetric three-dimensional computed tomography for predicting the outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Gaurav Bandi; Ryan J Meiners; Perry J Pickhardt; Stephen Y Nakada
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-10-31       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  34 in total

1.  Predictive value of low tube voltage and dual-energy CT for successful shock wave lithotripsy: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Remo Largo; Paul Stolzmann; Christian D Fankhauser; Cédric Poyet; Pirmin Wolfsgruber; Tullio Sulser; Hatem Alkadhi; Sebastian Winklhofer
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Is retrograde intrarenal surgery a viable treatment option for renal stones in patients with solitary kidney?

Authors:  G Giusti; S Proietti; L Cindolo; R Peschechera; G Sortino; F Berardinelli; G Taverna
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Advanced non-contrasted computed tomography post-processing by CT-Calculometry (CT-CM) outperforms established predictors for the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  J Langenauer; P Betschart; L Hechelhammer; S Güsewell; H P Schmid; D S Engeler; D Abt; V Zumstein
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  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

5.  Impact of official technical training for urologists on the efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Atsushi Okada; Takahiro Yasui; Kazumi Taguchi; Kazuhiro Niimi; Yasuhiko Hirose; Shuzo Hamamoto; Ryosuke Ando; Yasue Kubota; Yukihiro Umemoto; Keiichi Tozawa; Shoichi Sasaki; Yutaro Hayashi; Kenjiro Kohri
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Can the Hounsfield unit predict the success of medically expulsive therapy?

Authors:  Sakip Erturhan; Omer Bayrak; Ahmet Mete; Ilker Seckiner; Gokhan Urgun; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Are Hounsfield densities of ureteral stones a predictive factor for effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy?

Authors:  Basri Cakiroglu; S Erkan Eyyupoglu; Tuncay Tas; Mb Can Balci; Ismet Hazar; S Hilmi Aksoy; Orhun Sinanoglu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-05-15

8.  Does morbid obesity influence the success and complication rates of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for upper ureteral stones?

Authors:  Onur Dede; Nevzat Can Şener; Okan Baş; Gülay Dede; Muhammet Şahin Bağbancı
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2015-03

Review 9.  Shock wave lithotripsy: the new phoenix?

Authors:  Andreas Neisius; Michael E Lipkin; Jens J Rassweiler; Pei Zhong; Glenn M Preminger; Thomas Knoll
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  Kidney stones.

Authors:  Saeed R Khan; Margaret S Pearle; William G Robertson; Giovanni Gambaro; Benjamin K Canales; Steeve Doizi; Olivier Traxer; Hans-Göran Tiselius
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 52.329

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.