Literature DB >> 21550641

Factors determining stone-free rate in shock wave lithotripsy using standard focus of Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter.

Mohamed A Elkoushy1, Jacob A Hassan, Douglas D Morehouse, Maurice Anidjar, Sero Andonian.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To calculate the efficiency quotient (EQ) of the latest mobile Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter and to identify the factors determining the stone-free rate.
METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of the first consecutive 533 patients undergoing shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) from June 2009 to February 2010 was performed. A total of 16 patients with radiolucent stones and 43 patients with incomplete follow-up were excluded. The patients were followed up with plain radiography to assess the stone-free status. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the factors determining the stone-free rates.
RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for 474 patients, with a mean age of 54.2 ± 14.5 years. The success rate after a single SWL session was 82.7% (renal 82.2% and ureteral 83.3%; P = .81). The retreatment rate was 14.7% (renal 15.2% and ureteral 14.2%; P = .79). The stone-free rate was 77% (renal 74.1% and ureteral 80.9%; P = .10). Of the 474 patients, 43 had pre-SWL ureteral stents, and 13 required post-SWL ureteral stenting; 35 patients required post-SWL curative procedures. The EQ was 0.66, and the modified EQ was 0.62. On multivariate analysis, the stone-free patients had a smaller stone size (9.5 vs 10.3 mm, P = .02), younger age (53.1 vs 58.0 years, P = .002), right-sided stones (83.6% vs 71.0% P = .001), and the absence of a ureteral stent (78.7% vs 64.3%; P = .001).
CONCLUSIONS: The mobile Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter has an acceptable EQ of 0.66. In the present study, smaller stones (<10 mm), younger age, right-sided stones, and the absence of ureteral stents were associated with significantly greater stone-free rates.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21550641     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.03.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  13 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.  Comparison of escalating, constant, and reduction energy output in ESWL for renal stones: multi-arm prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Danny M Rabah; Mohamed S Mabrouki; Karim H Farhat; Mohamed A Seida; Mostafa A Arafa; Riyadh F Talic
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Evaluation of shock wave lithotripsy injury in the pig using a narrow focal zone lithotriptor.

Authors:  Bret A Connors; James A McAteer; Andrew P Evan; Philip M Blomgren; Rajash K Handa; Cynthia D Johnson; Sujuan Gao; Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James E Lingeman
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-04-23       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  The feasibility of shockwave lithotripsy for treating solitary, lower calyceal stones over 1 cm in size.

Authors:  Tae Beom Kim; Sang Cheol Lee; Khae Hawn Kim; Han Jung; Sang Jin Yoon; Jin Kyu Oh
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Evaluation of renal function in patients with a main renal stone larger than 1 cm and perioperative renal functional change in minimally invasive renal stone surgery: a prospective, observational study.

Authors:  Songzhe Piao; Juhyun Park; Hwancheol Son; Hyeon Jeong; Sung Yong Cho
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  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

7.  Changes in Urolithiasis Referral Patterns for Shock Wave Lithotripsy over a Decade: Was There Adherence to AUA/EAU Guidelines?

Authors:  Yasser A Noureldin; Mohamed A Elkoushy; Sero Andonian
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2015-09-04

8.  Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones.

Authors:  Okan Bas; Hasan Bakirtas; Nevzat Can Sener; Ufuk Ozturk; Can Tuygun; H N Goksel Goktug; M Abdurrahim Imamoglu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-10-27       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones.

Authors:  Berkan Resorlu; Ali Unsal; Tevfik Ziypak; Akif Diri; Gokhan Atis; Selcuk Guven; Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Omer Faruk Bozkurt; Derya Oztuna
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: What is new?

Authors:  Christian Bach; Theocharis Karaolides; Noor Buchholz
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2012-05-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.