Literature DB >> 25949936

Strategies to optimize shock wave lithotripsy outcome: Patient selection and treatment parameters.

Michelle Jo Semins1, Brian R Matlaga1.   

Abstract

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) was introduced in 1980, modernizing the treatment of upper urinary tract stones, and quickly became the most commonly utilized technique to treat kidney stones. Over the past 5-10 years, however, use of SWL has been declining because it is not as reliably effective as more modern technology. SWL success rates vary considerably and there is abundant literature predicting outcome based on patient- and stone-specific parameters. Herein we discuss the ways to optimize SWL outcomes by reviewing proper patient selection utilizing stone characteristics and patient features. Stone size, number, location, density, composition, and patient body habitus and renal anatomy are all discussed. We also review the technical parameters during SWL that can be controlled to improve results further, including type of anesthesia, coupling, shock wave rate, focal zones, pressures, and active monitoring. Following these basic principles and selection criteria will help maximize success rate.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Kidney stones; Nephrolithiasis; Optimization; Shock wave lithotripsy; Treatment outcome

Year:  2015        PMID: 25949936      PMCID: PMC4419132          DOI: 10.5527/wjn.v4.i2.230

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Nephrol        ISSN: 2220-6124


  52 in total

1.  Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis.

Authors:  Margaret S Pearle; Elizabeth A Calhoun; Gary C Curhan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Air pockets trapped during routine coupling in dry head lithotripsy can significantly decrease the delivery of shock wave energy.

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

3.  Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Khaled Madbouly; Abdel Moneim El-Tiraifi; Mohamed Seida; Salah R El-Faqih; Ramiz Atassi; Riyadh F Talic
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  The clinical implications of brushite calculi.

Authors:  L W Klee; C G Brito; J E Lingeman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  J E Lingeman; T A Coury; D M Newman; R J Kahnoski; J H Mertz; P G Mosbaugh; R E Steele; J R Woods
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Does a slower treatment rate impact the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary kidney or ureteral stones?

Authors:  Job Chacko; Michael Moore; Noel Sankey; Paramjit S Chandhoke
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Management of calyceal diverticular stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy: long-term outcome.

Authors:  Burak Turna; Asif Raza; Sami Moussa; Gordon Smith; David A Tolley
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Treatment of caliceal diverticular calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: patient selection and extended followup.

Authors:  S B Streem; A Yost
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at 60 shock waves/min reduces renal injury in a porcine model.

Authors:  Bret A Connors; Andrew P Evan; Philip M Blomgren; Rajash K Handa; Lynn R Willis; Sujuan Gao; James A McAteer; James E Lingeman
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 10.  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
View more
  4 in total

1.  The transgluteal approach to shockwave lithotripsy to treat distal ureter stones: a prospective, randomized, and multicenter study.

Authors:  Min Soo Choo; Jun Hyun Han; Jong Keun Kim; Tae Young Shin; Won Ki Lee; Sang Kon Lee; Seong Ho Lee
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Extremely slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones.

Authors:  Shinya Somiya; Shigeki Koterazawa; Katsuhiro Ito; Takao Haitani; Hitoshi Yamada; Toru Kanno
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 2.861

3.  Importance of precise imaging for stone identification during shockwave lithotripsy: a critical evaluation of "OptiVision" as a post-processing radiography imaging modality.

Authors:  Kemal Sarica; Mehmet Ferhat; Rei Ohara; Sameer Parmar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2021-09-15       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Evaluating the importance of different computed tomography scan-based factors in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones.

Authors:  Muhammad Waqas; Imad-Ud-Din Saqib; Muhammad Imran Jamil; Mohammad Ayaz Khan; Saeed Akhter
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2017-12-28
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.