Literature DB >> 22050487

Which is more important in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of solitary renal stones: stone location or stone burden?

Mostafa M Khalil1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of stone location and burden on the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) as a primary treatment of solitary renal stone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 438 patients with a solitary renal stone who underwent SWL as a primary treatment for their stones. All were evaluated by plain radiography of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder (KUB), ultrasonography, intravenous urography, or noncontrast enhanced CT before SWL and followed up for 3 months after treatment by KUB radiography and/or ultrasonography. Patients were classified into four groups according to stone location (renal pelvis, lower, middle, and upper calix) and three groups according to stone burden (≤ 1 cm(2), 1.1-2 cm(2), and >2 cm(2)). Treatment outcome was considered successful if no residual fragments (stone free) or clinically insignificant nonobstructing residuals less than 4 mm remained after 3 months of follow-up.
RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 45.1 ± 12.5 years. The mean stone burden, number of sessions, and shockwaves for the whole study were 1.3 ± 0.49 cm(2), 2.1 ± 0.7 sessions, and 5616.6 ± 2017.4 shockwaves, respectively. The stone-free rate of the study was 65.1%. The stone-free rates of the stones in the renal pelvis, lower, middle, and upper calices were 72.4%, 56%, 55.6%, and 69%, respectively. The stone-free rate of the stones ≤ 1 cm(2), 1.1 to 2 cm(2), and >2 cm(2) was 50.2%, 39.6%, and 10.2%, respectively (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Stone burden rather than stone location is considered as a predicting factor for the outcome of SWL in a solitary renal stone, especially in the renal pelvis and lower calix.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22050487     DOI: 10.1089/end.2011.0314

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  7 in total

1.  Using a three-dimensional computer assisted stone volume estimates to evaluate extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of kidney stones.

Authors:  Lene Hyldgaard Bigum; Peter Sommer Ulriksen; Omar Salah Omar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Simultaneous vs staged treatment of urolithiasis in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Boyd R Viers; Matthew K Tollefson; David E Patterson; Matthew T Gettman; Amy E Krambeck
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2014-11-16       Impact factor: 1.337

3.  Impact of official technical training for urologists on the efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Atsushi Okada; Takahiro Yasui; Kazumi Taguchi; Kazuhiro Niimi; Yasuhiko Hirose; Shuzo Hamamoto; Ryosuke Ando; Yasue Kubota; Yukihiro Umemoto; Keiichi Tozawa; Shoichi Sasaki; Yutaro Hayashi; Kenjiro Kohri
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Ultramini nephrostomy tract combined with flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of multiple renal calculi in paediatric patients.

Authors:  Jingyang Guo; Wen Zeng Yang; Yanqiao Zhang; Feng An; Ruojing Wei; Yu Li; Haisong Zhang
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-06-30

Review 5.  How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy?

Authors:  Christian G Chaussy; Hans-Göran Tiselius
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-11-25       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Management of 1-2 cm renal stones.

Authors:  Aneesh Srivastava; Saurabh S Chipde
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2013-07

7.  Factors influencing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy efficiency for optimal patient selection.

Authors:  Marius Snicorius; Arnas Bakavicius; Albertas Cekauskas; Marius Miglinas; Gediminas Platkevicius; Arunas Zelvys
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 1.195

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.