Literature DB >> 24118958

Treatment efficacy and outcomes using a third generation shockwave lithotripter.

Andreas Neisius1, Jens Wöllner, Christian Thomas, Frederik C Roos, Walburgis Brenner, Christian Hampel, Glenn M Preminger, Joachim W Thüroff, Rolf Gillitzer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical efficiency of a third generation electromagnetic shock wave lithotripter, the Lithoskop(®) (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), regarding outcomes, stone disintegration, retreatment and complication rates. To compare the results of the Lithoskop with other currently available systems and the reference standard lithotripter, the HM-3 (Dornier MedTech Europe GmbH, Wessling, Germany). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed the data from 183 patients, including 13 children, undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for renal and ureteric calculi collected from a prospectively populated database. Outcomes were assessed by plain abdominal film of kidney, ureter and bladder and renal ultrasonography for radiopaque and computerized tomography for radiolucent stones 1 day after treatment and after 3 months. We analysed stone size and location before and after treatment, stone disintegration rate, retreatment rate, stone-free and residual fragment rates after 3 months, along with auxiliary procedures and complications.
RESULTS: The mean (range) patient age was 48.6 (1.3-81.4) years, including 13 children with a mean (range) age of 8.4 (1.3-16.7) years, and 77% of the patients were male. In all, 46% of the calculi were localized in the kidney and 54% in the ureter. Renal stones were localized in the upper, middle and lower calyx and in the renal pelvis in 9, 29, 30 and 32% of patients, respectively. Ureteric stones were localized in the upper, mid- and distal ureter in 29, 19 and 52% of patients, respectively. The median (range) stone size before ESWL was 10 (4-25) mm in the kidney and 8 (4-28) mm in the ureteric calculi. The overall stone-free rate after 3 months was 91% (88% for renal and 93% for ureteric calculi); the mean number of sessions to achieve these rates was 1.3. Stone-free rates and the required number of sessions were determined only by stone size. In 7.1% of the patients (n = 13) post-interventional auxiliary procedures were necessary. We observed one perirenal haematoma as a major complication (0.5%), but this did not require any further therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical stone-free rates with the Lithoskop are high and similar to those of other available systems, including the reference standard HM-3 lithotripter. Retreatment and complication rates are low, supporting the use of ESWL as first-line therapy for urinary calculi <10 mm, independent of stone location.
© 2013 The Authors. BJU International © 2013 BJU International.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ESWL; Lithoskop®; efficacy and outcomes; electromagnetic third generation lithotripter

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24118958     DOI: 10.1111/bju.12159

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  12 in total

Review 1.  Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones.

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Christian G Chaussy
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Comparison of treatment outcomes according to output voltage during shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized multicenter study.

Authors:  Jinsung Park; Hong-Wook Kim; Sungwoo Hong; Hee Jo Yang; Hong Chung
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Do renal stones that fail lithotripsy require treatment?

Authors:  Ben Pullar; Catherine Lunter; Jane Collie; Syed Shah; Nimish Shah; Sami Hayek; Oliver J Wiseman
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones.

Authors:  Vera Y Chung; Benjamin W Turney
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  [What is the current status of shock wave lithotripsy?]

Authors:  A Neisius
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 7.  Clinical significance of residual fragments in 2015: impact, detection, and how to avoid them.

Authors:  Simon Hein; Arkadiusz Miernik; Konrad Wilhelm; Fabian Adams; Daniel Schlager; Thomas R W Herrmann; Jens J Rassweiler; Martin Schoenthaler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  OBESITY: A DELICATE ISSUE CHOOSING THE ESWL TREATMENT FOR PATIENTS WITH KIDNEY AND URETERAL STONES?

Authors:  C Pricop; G D Radavoi; D Puia; C Vechiu; V Jinga
Journal:  Acta Endocrinol (Buchar)       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.877

9.  Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: Parallel group comparison during the same time period.

Authors:  Robert Geraghty; Jacob Burr; Nick Simmonds; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar

10.  Is scoring system of computed tomography based metric parameters can accurately predicts shock wave lithotripsy stone-free rates and aid in the development of treatment strategies?

Authors:  Yasser Ali Badran; Alsayed Saad Abdelaziz; Mohamed Ahmed Shehab; Hazem Abdelsabour Dief Mohamed; Absel-Aziz Ali Emara; Ali Mohamed Ali Elnabtity; Maged Mohammed Ghanem; Hesham Abdel Azim ELHelaly
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.