Literature DB >> 21342413

Prognostic variables for shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment success: no impact of body mass index (BMI) using a third generation lithotripter.

Gencay Hatiboglu1, Valentin Popeneciu, Martin Kurosch, Johannes Huber, Sascha Pahernik, Jesco Pfitzenmaier, Axel Haferkamp, Markus Hohenfellner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: • To investigate the effect of different variables including body mass index (BMI) on therapy outcome in patients with upper urinary tract stones treated with a third generation lithotripter, as BMI has been reported to be an independent predictor for stone-free status after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) performed with first or second generation lithotripters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • In all, 172 patients with kidney stones with a mean (range) size of 9.2 (3.0-32.0) mm were included in the study. • In all, 91 patients (52.9%) were treated with a ureteric stent in situ. • For SWL therapy a third generation, electromagnetic lithotripter (Siemens Lithoskop™) was used. Stone-free status was reached, when no more treatable stones were present (no stone or stone < 3 mm). • BMI, stone size and localization, age, gender, treatment parameters and ureteric stent in situ were evaluated for their prognostic relevance on therapy success.
RESULTS: • The mean (range) BMI of all patients was 27.8 (19.0-58.6) kg/m(2). • Patients were categorized into two groups: A) patients that were stone free after one treatment; B) patients with residual stones. The mean (sd) BMI was 27.4 (4.6) kg/m(2) and 28.4 (6.1) kg/m(2) for A and B, respectively. • Univariate and multivariate analysis for freedom of stones showed that only stone size (P < 0.01) and presence of a ureteric stent (P = 0.01) were independent prognostic variables. • BMI had no significant influence on therapy outcome (P = 0.51).
CONCLUSIONS: • Using a third generation lithotripter, BMI was not an independent predictor of stone-free rate after SWL therapy of kidney stones. • This effect might be attributed to a greater penetration depth of the shockwave energy. Stone size and a ureteric stent in situ were the only variables with prognostic significance.
© 2010 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2010 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21342413     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10007.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  10 in total

1.  Obesity and Kidney Stone Procedures.

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

2.  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

3.  OBESITY: A DELICATE ISSUE CHOOSING THE ESWL TREATMENT FOR PATIENTS WITH KIDNEY AND URETERAL STONES?

Authors:  C Pricop; G D Radavoi; D Puia; C Vechiu; V Jinga
Journal:  Acta Endocrinol (Buchar)       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.877

4.  Outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones according to ESWL intensity.

Authors:  Ji Hyung Yoon; Sejun Park; Seong Cheol Kim; Sungchan Park; Kyung Hyun Moon; Sang Hyeon Cheon; Taekmin Kwon
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-04

5.  Predictive factors of the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones.

Authors:  Ji Woong Choi; Phil Hyun Song; Hyun Tae Kim
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2012-06-19

6.  Clinical Nomograms to Predict Stone-Free Rates after Shock-Wave Lithotripsy: Development and Internal-Validation.

Authors:  Jung Kwon Kim; Seung Beom Ha; Chan Hoo Jeon; Jong Jin Oh; Sung Yong Cho; Seung-June Oh; Hyeon Hoe Kim; Chang Wook Jeong
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Machine learning prediction of stone-free success in patients with urinary stone after treatment of shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Seung Woo Yang; Yun Kyong Hyon; Hyun Seok Na; Long Jin; Jae Geun Lee; Jong Mok Park; Ji Yong Lee; Ju Hyun Shin; Jae Sung Lim; Yong Gil Na; Kiwan Jeon; Taeyoung Ha; Jinbum Kim; Ki Hak Song
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 2.264

8.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for management of residual stones after ureterolithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Zhichao Huang; Xiaokun Zhao; Lei Zhang; Zhaohui Zhong; Ran Xu; Lianping Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Has the pelvic renal stone position inside the upper loop of JJ stent any influence on the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy results?

Authors:  Catalin Pricop; Dragomir N Serban; Ionela Lacramioara Serban; Alin-Adrian Cumpanas; Constantin-Virgil Gingu
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2016-08-08

Review 10.  Indications and contraindications for shock wave lithotripsy and how to improve outcomes.

Authors:  Luke F Reynolds; Tad Kroczak; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2018-09-04
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.