Literature DB >> 22819406

A prospective, randomized study of the clinical effects of shock wave delivery for unilateral kidney stones: 60 versus 120 shocks per minute.

Chi-Fai Ng1, Anthony K Y Lo, Kim W M Lee, K T Wong, Wai-yee Chung, Danny Gohel.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We assessed the effects of different shock wave delivery rates in patients treated with shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones, particularly treatment success, degree of renal injury and pain experienced, and analgesic demand.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 206 patients with renal stones were prospectively randomized to receive shock waves delivered at 60 (group 1) or 120 (group 2) shocks per minute using a Sonolith® Vision at a single institution in October 2008 and August 2010. The primary outcome was successful treatment 12 weeks after 1 lithotripsy session. Secondary outcome measures included the degree of renal injury, as reflected by changes in urinary markers of renal injury, as well as patient pain scores and analgesia consumed during treatment.
RESULTS: Mean stone size in groups 1 and 2 was 8.95 and 9.28 mm, respectively (p = 0.525). The overall treatment success rate was 43.2%. It was significantly better in group 1 than in group 2 (50.5% vs 35.9%, p = 0.035). There was no between group difference in the success rate for stones 10 mm or less but the success rate was statistically better for group 1 patients with stones greater than 10 mm (p = 0.002). Immediately after shock wave lithotripsy there was a statistically significant greater increase in urinary NAG (p = 0.003) and interleukin-18 (p = 0.022) in group 1. There was no between group difference in pain scores, analgesic consumption during shock wave lithotripsy or unplanned hospital visits.
CONCLUSIONS: Slower shock wave delivery yielded better treatment outcomes, particularly for stones greater than 10 mm, without increasing patient pain or analgesic demand. However, slower shock wave delivery also appeared to cause a statistically significant increase in acute renal injury markers, although the clinical implication was uncertain.
Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22819406     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.05.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  10 in total

1.  Effect of the body wall on lithotripter shock waves.

Authors:  Guangyan Li; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Zachary C Berwick
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 2.942

2.  Development of a novel magnetic resonance imaging acquisition and analysis workflow for the quantification of shock wave lithotripsy-induced renal hemorrhagic injury.

Authors:  Rajash K Handa; Paul R Territo; Philip M Blomgren; Scott A Persohn; Chen Lin; Cynthia D Johnson; Lei Jiang; Bret A Connors; Gary D Hutchins
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 3.  [S2k guidelines on diagnostics, therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis (AWMF 043/025) : Compendium].

Authors:  T Knoll; T Bach; U Humke; A Neisius; R Stein; M Schönthaler; G Wendt-Nordahl
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 4.  Novel biomarkers of acute kidney injury: Evaluation and evidence in urologic surgery.

Authors:  Marianne Schmid; Deepansh Dalela; Rana Tahbaz; Jessica Langetepe; Marco Randazzo; Roland Dahlem; Margit Fisch; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Felix K-H Chun
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2015-05-06

5.  Shock wave induces biological renal damage by activating excessive inflammatory responses in rat model.

Authors:  Xiang Li; Qingzhi Long; Xinfa Cheng; Dalin He
Journal:  Inflammation       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.092

6.  Lithotripter outcomes in a community practice setting: comparison of an electromagnetic and an electrohydraulic lithotripter.

Authors:  Naeem Bhojani; Jessica A Mandeville; Tariq A Hameed; Trevor M Soergel; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Amy E Krambeck; James E Lingeman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Effect of anxiety and pain on success of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for treatment of proximal ureteral and renal pelvic stones.

Authors:  Oktay Ucer; Yasin Ceylan; Fatih Ekren; Erol Ozan; Talha Muezzinoglu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  The effect of renal cortical thickness on the treatment outcomes of kidney stones treated with shockwave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Chi-Fai Ng; Sylvia Luke; Peter K F Chiu; Jeremy Y C Teoh; Ka-Tak Wong; Simon S M Hou
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-04-28

9.  Urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin level as a biomarker of acute kidney injury following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Emir Milišić; Jasmin Alić; Zlatan Zvizdić; Orhan Lepara; Asmir Jonuzi; Lejla Milišić; Almir Fajkić
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2021-11-02

Review 10.  Comparison of High, Intermediate, and Low Frequency Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Urinary Tract Stone Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Dong Hyuk Kang; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Ham; Hyungmin Lee; Jong Kyou Kwon; Young Deuk Choi; Joo Yong Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.