PURPOSE: We assessed patient outcomes using 2 widely different contemporary lithotripters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a consecutive case series study of 355 patients in a large private practice group using a Modulith® SLX electromagnetic lithotripter in 200 patients and a LithoGold LG-380 electrohydraulic lithotripter (TRT, Woodstock, Georgia) in 155. Patients were followed at approximately 2 weeks. All preoperative and postoperative films were reviewed blindly by a dedicated genitourinary radiologist. The stone-free rate was defined as no residual fragments remaining after a single session of shock wave lithotripsy without an ancillary procedure. RESULTS: Patients with multiple stones were excluded from analysis, leaving 76 and 142 treated with electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripsy, respectively. The stone-free rate was similar for the electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripters (29 of 76 patients or 38.2% and 69 of 142 or 48.6%, p = 0.15) with no difference in the stone-free outcome for renal stones (20 of 45 or 44.4% and 33 of 66 or 50%, p = 0.70) or ureteral stones (9 of 31 or 29% and 36 of 76 or 47.4%, respectively, p = 0.08). The percent of stones that did not break was similar for the electrohydraulic and electromagnetic devices (10 of 76 patients or 13.2% and 23 of 142 or 16.2%) and ureteroscopy was the most common ancillary procedure (18 of 22 or 81.8% and 30 of 40 or 75%, respectively). The overall mean number of procedures performed in patients in the 2 groups was similar (1.7 and 1.5, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We present lithotripsy outcomes in the setting of a suburban urology practice. Stone-free rates were modest using shock wave lithotripsy alone but access to ureteroscopy provided satisfactory outcomes overall. Although the acoustic characteristics of the electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripters differ substantially, outcomes with these 2 machines were similar.
PURPOSE: We assessed patient outcomes using 2 widely different contemporary lithotripters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a consecutive case series study of 355 patients in a large private practice group using a Modulith® SLX electromagnetic lithotripter in 200 patients and a LithoGold LG-380 electrohydraulic lithotripter (TRT, Woodstock, Georgia) in 155. Patients were followed at approximately 2 weeks. All preoperative and postoperative films were reviewed blindly by a dedicated genitourinary radiologist. The stone-free rate was defined as no residual fragments remaining after a single session of shock wave lithotripsy without an ancillary procedure. RESULTS:Patients with multiple stones were excluded from analysis, leaving 76 and 142 treated with electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripsy, respectively. The stone-free rate was similar for the electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripters (29 of 76 patients or 38.2% and 69 of 142 or 48.6%, p = 0.15) with no difference in the stone-free outcome for renal stones (20 of 45 or 44.4% and 33 of 66 or 50%, p = 0.70) or ureteral stones (9 of 31 or 29% and 36 of 76 or 47.4%, respectively, p = 0.08). The percent of stones that did not break was similar for the electrohydraulic and electromagnetic devices (10 of 76 patients or 13.2% and 23 of 142 or 16.2%) and ureteroscopy was the most common ancillary procedure (18 of 22 or 81.8% and 30 of 40 or 75%, respectively). The overall mean number of procedures performed in patients in the 2 groups was similar (1.7 and 1.5, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We present lithotripsy outcomes in the setting of a suburban urology practice. Stone-free rates were modest using shock wave lithotripsy alone but access to ureteroscopy provided satisfactory outcomes overall. Although the acoustic characteristics of the electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripters differ substantially, outcomes with these 2 machines were similar.
Authors: Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James A McAteer; R Jason Vonderhaar; Irina V Pishchalnikova; James C Williams; Andrew P Evan Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Yuri A Pishchalnikov; Joshua S Neucks; R Jason VonDerHaar; Irina V Pishchalnikova; James C Williams; James A McAteer Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Joshua S Neucks; Yuri A Pishchalnikov; Anthony J Zancanaro; Jonathan N VonDerHaar; James C Williams; James A McAteer Journal: Urol Res Date: 2008-01-03
Authors: Rajash K Handa; Michael R Bailey; Marla Paun; Sujuan Gao; Bret A Connors; Lynn R Willis; Andrew P Evan Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-12-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Hyun Cheol Jeong; Seung Hwan Jeon; Zhu Guan Qun; Kang Sup Kim; Sae Woong Choi; Fahad Bashraheel; Woong Jin Bae; Su Jin Kim; Hyuk Jin Cho; U Syn Ha; Sung Hoo Hong; Ji Youl Lee; Du Geon Moon; Sae Woong Kim Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 5.400