Literature DB >> 22002726

Value of focal applied energy quotient in treatment of ureteral lithiasis with shock waves.

Miguel Angel Arrabal-Polo1, Miguel Arrabal-Martin, Francisco Palao-Yago, Jose Luis Mijan-Ortiz, Armando Zuluaga-Gomez.   

Abstract

The treatment of ureteral lithiasis by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is progressively being abandoned owing to advances in endoscopic lithotripsy. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the causes as to why ESWL is less effective-with a measurable parameter: focal applied energy quotient (FAEQ) that allows us to apply an improvement project in ESWL results for ureteral lithiasis. A prospective observational cohort study with 3-year follow-up and enrollment period was done with three groups of cases. In Group A, 83 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by endoscopic lithotripsy using Holmiun:YAG laser. In Group B, 81 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by ESWL using Doli-S device (EMSE 220F-XXP). In Group C, 65 cases of ureteral lithiasis were treated by ESWL using Doli-S device (EMSE 220F-XXP) (FAEQ >10). Statistical study and calculation of RR, NNT, Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Student's t test were done. Efficiency quotient (EQ) and focal applied energy quotient [FAEQ = (radioscopy seconds/number of shock waves) × ESWL session J] were analyzed. From the results, the success rate of the treatment using Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy and ESWL is found to be 94 and 48%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Success rate of endoscopic laser lithotripsy for lumbar ureteral stones was 82% versus 57% of ESWL (p = 0.611). In Group B, FAEQ was 8.12. In Group C, success rate was 93.84% with FAEQ of 10.64%. When we compare results from endoscopic lithotripsy with Holmium:YAG laser in Group B with results from ESWL with FAEQ >10, we do not observe absolute benefit choosing one or the other. In conclusion, the application of ESWL with FAEQ >10, that is, improving radiologic focalization of the calculus and increasing the number of Joules/SW, makes possible a treatment as safe and equally efficient as Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in ureteral lithiasis less than 13 mm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22002726     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-011-0430-6

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


  20 in total

Review 1.  Removal of ureteral stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic procedures. What can we learn from the literature in terms of results and treatment efforts?

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2005-05-29

2.  Intracorporeal or extracorporeal lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi? Effect of stone size and multiplicity on success rates.

Authors:  C G Eden; I R Mark; R R Gupta; J Eastman; N C Shrotri; R C Tiptaft
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  Efficiency and cost of treating proximal ureteral stones: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser.

Authors:  Brian D Parker; Robert W Frederick; T Philip Reilly; Patrick S Lowry; Erin T Bird
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Cost-effectiveness of treating ureteral stones in a Taipei City Hospital: shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy plus lithoclast.

Authors:  Chi-Yi Huang; Shiou-Sheng Chen; Li-Kuei Chen
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2009-12-08       Impact factor: 2.089

5.  Therapeutic options in lithiasis of the lumbar ureter.

Authors:  Miguel Arrabal-Martín; Manuel Pareja-Vilches; Francisco Gutiérrez-Tejero; José Luis Miján-Ortiz; Francisco Palao-Yago; Armando Zuluaga-Gómez
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  How effective is extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones with Dornier Lithotripter S EMSE 220F-XXP? A prospective and preliminary assessment.

Authors:  Maria Chiara Sighinolfi; Salvatore Micali; Stefano De Stefani; Giovanni Alberto Pini; Massimo Rivalta; Filippo Cianci; Giampaolo Bianchi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  John S Lam; Tricia D Greene; Mantu Gupta
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  A comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy under intravenous sedation for the management of distal ureteric calculi.

Authors:  Denis H Hosking; Wilda E Smith; Sherrell E McColm
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 1.344

9.  Nonstented versus routine stented ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Yi Shao; Jian Zhuo; Xiao-Wen Sun; Wei Wen; Hai-Tao Liu; Shu-Jie Xia
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2008-09-17

10.  Comparison of holmium laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in managing upper-ureteral stones.

Authors:  Shivadeo S Bapat; Ketan V Pai; Satyajeet S Purnapatre; Pushkaraj B Yadav; Abhijit S Padye
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.942

View more
  1 in total

1.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: An opinion on its future.

Authors:  Jens Rassweiler; Marie-Claire Rassweiler; Thomas Frede; Peter Alken
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2014-01
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.