Literature DB >> 21296481

A prospective randomised trial comparing the modified HM3 with the MODULITH® SLX-F2 lithotripter.

Pascal Zehnder1, Beat Roth, Frédéric Birkhäuser, Silvia Schneider, Rolf Schmutz, George N Thalmann, Urs E Studer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy of first- versus last-generation lithotripters is unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and complications of the modified Dornier HM3 lithotripter (Dornier MedTech, Wessling, Germany) to the MODULITH) SLX-F2 lithotripter (Storz Medical AG, Tägerwilen, Switzerland) for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a prospective, randomised, single-institution trial that included elective and emergency patients.
INTERVENTIONS: Shock wave treatments were performed under anaesthesia. MEASUREMENTS: Stone disintegration, residual fragments, collecting system dilatation, colic pain, and possible kidney haematoma were evaluated 1 d and 3 mo after ESWL. Complications, ESWL retreatments, and adjuvant procedures were documented. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Patients treated with the HM3 lithotripter (n=405) required fewer shock waves and shorter fluoroscopy times than patients treated with the MODULITH) SLX-F2 lithotripter (n=415). For solitary kidney stones, the HM3 lithotripter produced a slightly higher stone-free rate (p=0.06) on day 1; stone-free rates were not significantly different at 3 mo (HM3: 74% vs MODULITH) SLX-F2: 67%; p=0.36). For solitary ureteral stones, the stone-free rate was higher at 3 mo with the HM3 lithotripter (HM3: 90% vs MODULITH) SLX-F2: 81%; p=0.05). For solitary lower calyx stones, stone-free rates were equal at 3 mo (63%). In patients with multiple stones, the HM3 lithotripter's stone-free rate was higher at 3 mo (HM3: 64% vs MODULITH) SLX-F2: 44%; p=0.003). Overall, HM3 lithotripter led to fewer secondary treatments (HM3: 11% vs MODULITH) SLX-F2: 19%; p=0.001) and fewer kidney haematomas (HM3: 1% vs. MODULITH) SLX-F2: 3%; p=0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: The modified HM3 lithotripter required fewer shock waves and shorter fluoroscopy times, showed higher stone-free rates for solitary ureteral stones and multiple stones, and led to fewer kidney haematomas and fewer secondary treatments than the MODULITH) SLX-F2 lithotripter. In patients with a solitary kidney and solitary lower calyx stones, results were comparable for both lithotripters.
Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21296481     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.01.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  16 in total

Review 1.  Treatment of ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.

Authors:  Brian R Matlaga; Jeroen P Jansen; Lisa M Meckley; Thomas W Byrne; James E Lingeman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  [Calyceal stones].

Authors:  C Netsch; A J Gross
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 0.639

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

4.  [Benefit assessment by the Federal Joint Committee: assessment of treatment strategies for low risk prostate cancer].

Authors:  M Schmedders; S Janatzek; B Zimmer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Improving the lens design and performance of a contemporary electromagnetic shock wave lithotripter.

Authors:  Andreas Neisius; Nathan B Smith; Georgy Sankin; Nicholas John Kuntz; John Francis Madden; Daniel E Fovargue; Sorin Mitran; Michael Eric Lipkin; Walter Neal Simmons; Glenn M Preminger; Pei Zhong
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 6.  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

7.  A low or high BMI is a risk factor for renal hematoma after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for kidney stones.

Authors:  Fabio Nussberger; Beat Roth; Tobias Metzger; Bernhard Kiss; George N Thalmann; Roland Seiler
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones.

Authors:  Vera Y Chung; Benjamin W Turney
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Comparison of tissue injury from focused ultrasonic propulsion of kidney stones versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Bret A Connors; Andrew P Evan; Philip M Blomgren; Ryan S Hsi; Jonathan D Harper; Mathew D Sorensen; Yak-Nam Wang; Julianna C Simon; Marla Paun; Frank Starr; Bryan W Cunitz; Michael R Bailey; James E Lingeman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Lithotripter outcomes in a community practice setting: comparison of an electromagnetic and an electrohydraulic lithotripter.

Authors:  Naeem Bhojani; Jessica A Mandeville; Tariq A Hameed; Trevor M Soergel; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Amy E Krambeck; James E Lingeman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.