Literature DB >> 24220692

Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm.

Nevzat Can Sener1, M Abdurrahim Imamoglu, Okan Bas, Ufuk Ozturk, H N Goksel Goktug, Can Tuygun, Hasan Bakirtas.   

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to compare the success and complications of flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) with its advanced technology and the accomplished method of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the treatment of lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm. One hundred and forty patients were randomized as 70 undergoing SWL (Group 1) and 70 undergoing F-URS (Group 2). Patients were evaluated by plain X-ray and urinary ultrasound 1 week and after 3 months following SWL. The same procedure was done for F-URS patients 1 week after surgery and after 3 months. Success rates were established the day following the procedure and after 3 months. Fragmentation less than 3 mm was considered success. Mean operative time was 44 ± 7.4 min for Group 2 and mean fluoroscopy duration was 51 ± 12 s. In F-URS group, all the patients were stone free after 3 months (100 %). Group 1 had 2.7 ± 0.4 sessions of SWL. Sixty-four patients were stone free in that group after 3 months (91.5 %). The procedure yielded significant success in FURS group, even though patients underwent SWL for 2.7 ± 0.4 sessions and F-URS for 1 session (p < 0.05). With higher success and similar complication rates, fewer sessions per treatment, and advances in technology and experience, we believe F-URS has a potential to be the first treatment option over SWL in the future.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24220692     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-013-0618-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   3.436


  19 in total

1.  Primary extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of staghorn renal calculi.

Authors:  M P Wirth; M Theiss; H G Frohmüller
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  When should one perform shockwave lithotripsy for lower caliceal stones?

Authors:  Y Ilker; T Tarcan; A Akdas
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  Flexible ureteroscopy in conjunction with in situ lithotripsy for lower pole calculi.

Authors:  B K Hollenbeck; T G Schuster; G J Faerber; J S Wolf
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi.

Authors:  M Grasso; M Ficazzola
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  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

6.  Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less.

Authors:  Margaret S Pearle; James E Lingeman; Raymond Leveillee; Ramsay Kuo; Glenn M Preminger; Robert B Nadler; Joseph Macaluso; Manoj Monga; Udaya Kumar; John Dushinski; David M Albala; J Stuart Wolf; Dean Assimos; Michael Fabrizio; Larry C Munch; Stephen Y Nakada; Brian Auge; John Honey; Kenneth Ogan; John Pattaras; Elspeth M McDougall; Timothy D Averch; Thomas Turk; Paul Pietrow; Stephanie Watkins
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Predictive factors of lower calyceal stone clearance after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): the impact of radiological anatomy.

Authors:  Chih-Chieh Lin; Yen-Shen Hsu; Kuang-Kuo Chen
Journal:  J Chin Med Assoc       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.743

8.  Management of upper urinary tract calculi with ureteroscopic techniques.

Authors:  E R Tawfiek; D H Bagley
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 9.  Complications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary stones: to know and to manage them-a review.

Authors:  Alessandro D'Addessi; Matteo Vittori; Marco Racioppi; Francesco Pinto; Emilio Sacco; PierFrancesco Bassi
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2012-03-12

10.  Predictors of success after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for renal calculi between 20-30 mm: a multivariate analysis model.

Authors:  Ahmed El-Assmy; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Mohamed E Abo-Elghar; Ibrahim Eraky; Mahmoud R El-Kenawy; Khaled Z Sheir
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2006-03-23
View more
  18 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

Review 2.  Update of the ICUD-SIU consultation on stone technology behind ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Jonathan Cloutier; Ken Anson; Guido Giusti; Michael Grasso; Guido Kamphuis; Sven Lahme; Evangelos Liatsikos; Anup Patel; Margaret S Pearle; Luc Valiquette; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Management behaviors of the urology practitioners to the small lower calyceal stones: the results of a web-based survey.

Authors:  Ferhat Ates; Murat Zor; Omer Yılmaz; Murat Tuncer; Metin Ozturk; Cenk Gurbuz; Gokhan Atis; Orhan Koca; Asif Yildirim; Bilal Eryildirim; Eyup Veli Kucuk; Fehmi Narter; Temucin Senkul; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Re: Impact of pelvicalyceal anatomy in treatment with shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy of lower pole renal stones.

Authors:  Nevzat Can Sener; Abdurrahim Imamoglu; Okan Bas; Ufuk Ozturk; Goksel Goktug; Can Tuygun; Hasan Bakirtas
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  The impact of pelvicalyceal anatomy in treatment with shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy of lower pole renal stones.

Authors:  Senol Adanur; Tevfik Ziypak
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 6.  Flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) with holmium laser versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stone <2 cm: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Mi; Kewei Ren; Haiyan Pan; Lijie Zhu; Sheng Wu; Xiaoming You; Hongbao Shao; Feng Dai; Tao Peng; Feng Qin; Jian Wang; Yi Huang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 3.436

7.  Flexible Ureterorenoscopy versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for the treatment of upper/middle calyx kidney stones of 10-20 mm: a retrospective analysis of 174 patients.

Authors:  Kursat Cecen; Mert Ali Karadag; Aslan Demir; Murat Bagcioglu; Ramazan Kocaaslan; Mustafa Sofikerim
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2014-09-24

8.  Difference of opinion--In the era of flexible ureteroscopy is there still a place for Shock-wave lithotripsy? Opinion: YES.

Authors:  J F Donaldson
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

9.  Is flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy the new gold standard for lower pole renal stones when compared to shock wave lithotripsy: Comparative outcomes from a University hospital over similar time period.

Authors:  Jacob Burr; Hiro Ishii; Nick Simmonds; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2015-03-09

10.  Comparison of the efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sheng-Han Tsai; Hsiao-Jen Chung; Ping-Tao Tseng; Yi-Cheng Wu; Yu-Kang Tu; Chih-Wei Hsu; Wei-Te Lei
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.889

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.