Literature DB >> 21901557

Is shock wave lithotripsy efficient for the elderly stone formers? Results of a matched-pair analysis.

Prodromos Philippou1, Djelali Lamrani, Konstantinos Moraitis, Christian Bach, Junaid Masood, Noor Buchholz.   

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), in a comparative study based on the principles of matched-pair analysis. Over a period of 4 years, 2,311 patients were treated with SWL in a tertiary referral center. Patient and stone data were recorded in a prospective electronic database. Among these patients, 115 (4.97%) were older than 70 years of age and fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the study (Group A). For the purposes of the comparative analysis, Group A patients were matched for gender and stone parameters (side, location of stone, and diameter ±2 mm) with a control group of patients under the age of 70 (Group B). Following matching, the patients' electronic medical records were reviewed, to identify SWL success rates at 3 months and McNemar's test was used to compare the efficacy of SWL between the two groups. Matching was possible in all cases. The results indicate that there were no statistically significant differences in the mean number of SWL sessions or in the mean number of impulses per session between the two groups. The overall stone clearance rate achieved by SWL alone was 71.3% for Group A and 73.9% for group B. Discordant pairs were found in 37 cases (in 17 pairs only patients in Group A became stone-free, while in 20 pairs only patients in Group B became stone-free). By using McNemar's test, the difference in stone clearance rates between the two groups was not found to be statistically significant (p = 0.742). A total of 22 patients (19.1%) in Group A and 17 patients (14.7%) in Group B underwent an adjuvant procedure to achieve stone clearance. McNemar's test also revealed the absence of any statistically significant difference in SWL success rates between older and younger patients in the subgroups of patients presenting with either ureteric or renal stones (p = 0.727 and p = 0.571, respectively). In conclusion, SWL is still considered one of the first-line tools for geriatric patients suffering from urolithiasis, as increased age alone does not seem to adversely affect the efficacy of SWL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21901557     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-011-0424-4

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


  23 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of outcome following lithotripsy.

Authors:  Athanasios N Argyropoulos; David A Tolley
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.309

2.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy-induced perirenal hematomas.

Authors:  P M Knapp; T B Kulb; J E Lingeman; D M Newman; J H Mertz; P G Mosbaugh; R E Steele
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  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

4.  Matched pair analysis of ureteroscopy vs. shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteric calculi.

Authors:  G D Stewart; S V Bariol; S A Moussa; G Smith; D A Tolley
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2007-03-26       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy the preferred treatment option for elderly patients with urinary stone? A multivariate analysis of the effect of patient age on treatment outcome.

Authors:  Chi-Fai Ng; Annie Wong; David Tolley
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2007-04-13       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  A multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with subcapsular hematoma formation following electromagnetic shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Nivedita Bhatta Dhar; Julie Thornton; Matthew T Karafa; Stevan B Streem
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Can we improve the prediction of stone-free status after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones? A neural network or a statistical model?

Authors:  Mohamed A Gomha; Khaled Z Sheir; Saeed Showky; Mohamed Abdel-Khalek; Alaa A Mokhtar; Khaled Madbouly
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Identifying risk factors in development of clinically significant post-shock-wave lithotripsy subcapsular hematomas.

Authors:  L H Newman; B Saltzman
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Independent predictors of failure of shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones employing a second-generation lithotripter.

Authors:  Dimitrios Delakas; Ioannis Karyotis; George Daskalopoulos; Emmanuel Lianos; Emmanuel Mavromanolakis
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Ureteric stents compromise stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stones: results of a matched-pair analysis.

Authors:  Athanasios N Argyropoulos; David A Tolley
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-08-14       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  3 in total

1.  A large series of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the very elderly.

Authors:  Guilherme Braga Lamacchia; Fernando Korkes; Willy Baccaglini; Luiz Gustavo Miolaro de Mello; Marcelo Szwarc; Marcos Tobias-Machado
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2019-08-20

2.  Do renal cysts affect the success of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? A retrospective comparative study.

Authors:  Adnan Gücük; Ufuk Oztürk; Uğur Uyetürk; Eray Kemahlı; Güven Akın; M Abdurrahim Imamoğlu; Ahmet Metin
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2013-06-06

Review 3.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: What is new?

Authors:  Christian Bach; Theocharis Karaolides; Noor Buchholz
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2012-05-24
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.