Literature DB >> 26743071

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

Vera Y Chung1, Benjamin W Turney2.   

Abstract

Many centres favour endourological management over shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the management of moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones. International guidelines support all available modalities for the treatment of these stones. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of SWL in the treatment of 10- to 20-mm renal stones. From January 2013 to October 2014, all patients with a renal stone measuring between 10 and 20 mm in maximum diameter on CT scan that were eligible for lithotripsy were included. 130 consecutive patients were evaluated. Demographics, location of stone within the kidney, number of SWL sessions and treatment outcomes were analysed. Treatment success was classified into complete stone clearance and the presence of clinically insignificant residual fragments <4 mm (CIRF). 119 patients (92 %) completed treatment and radiological follow-up. Eleven patients were excluded due to incomplete follow-up data. The mean age was 56.8 (23-88). Male to female ratio was 1.9:1 (78:41) and the mean BMI was 28.4 (17.9-58). The mean stone size was 12.8 mm (10-14 mm: n = 87; 15-20 mm: n = 32). The mean number of treatments was 2.14 and 2.82 for stones 10-14 and 15-20 mm, respectively. Overall treatment success was 66.4 % (combined complete stone clearance and CIRFs). Subdivided by stone size <15 mm and ≥15 mm, the success rate was 70.4 and 53.1 %, respectively. The treatment success by stone location was 65, 64 and 70 % for upper, middle and lower pole stones, respectively and 67 % for PUJ stones. For those who failed SWL treatment, the majority 50 % (n = 20) were managed expectantly, 42.5 % (n = 17) required URS, and 7.5 % (n = 3) required PNL. This study suggests that SWL has an efficacy for treating larger renal stones (10-20 mm) that is equivalent to success rates for smaller stones in other series. As a low-risk and non-invasive procedure SWL should be considered a first-line treatment for these stones.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complication; Efficacy; Renal stones; Shock wave lithotripsy

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26743071     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-015-0857-2

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


  18 in total

1.  The role of microperc in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi.

Authors:  Abdulkadir Tepeler; Abdullah Armagan; Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar; Mesrur Selcuk Silay; Necmettin Penbegul; Tolga Akman; Namık Kemal Hatipoglu; Cevper Ersoz; Mehmet Remzi Erdem; Muzaffer Akcay
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 2.942

2.  Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy.

Authors:  A M Elbahnasy; R V Clayman; A L Shalhav; D M Hoenig; P Chandhoke; J E Lingeman; J D Denstedt; R Kahn; D G Assimos; S Y Nakada
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  [Place of the flexible ureterorenoscopy first choice for the treatment of kidney stones. Survey results practice committee of the AFU lithiasis completed in 2011].

Authors:  V Estrade; K Bensalah; J-P Bringer; E Chabannes; X Carpentier; P Conort; E Denis; B Doré; J R Gautier; H Hadjadj; J Hubet; A Hoznek; E Lechevallier; P Meria; P Mozer; C Saussine; L Yonneau; O Traxer
Journal:  Prog Urol       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 0.915

4.  Treatment efficacy and outcomes using a third generation shockwave lithotripter.

Authors:  Andreas Neisius; Jens Wöllner; Christian Thomas; Frederik C Roos; Walburgis Brenner; Christian Hampel; Glenn M Preminger; Joachim W Thüroff; Rolf Gillitzer
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  A prospective randomised trial comparing the modified HM3 with the MODULITH® SLX-F2 lithotripter.

Authors:  Pascal Zehnder; Beat Roth; Frédéric Birkhäuser; Silvia Schneider; Rolf Schmutz; George N Thalmann; Urs E Studer
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-01-25       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones.

Authors:  Attasit Srisubat; Somkiat Potisat; Bannakij Lojanapiwat; Vasun Setthawong; Malinee Laopaiboon
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-11-24

7.  Risk factors for the formation of a steinstrasse after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a statistical model.

Authors:  Khaled Madbouly; Khaled Z Sheir; Emad Elsobky; Ibrahim Eraky; Mahmoud Kenawy
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  A Comparison of 2 Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Techniques for the Treatment of Pediatric Kidney Stones of Sizes 10-20 mm: Microperc vs Miniperc.

Authors:  Tuna Karatag; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Mesrur Selcuk Silay; Mehmet Nuri Bodakci; Ibrahim Buldu; Mansur Daggulli; Namik Kemal Hatipoglu; Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu; Abdullah Armagan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Comparison of shockwave lithotripsy and microperc for treatment of kidney stones in children.

Authors:  Namık Kemal Hatipoglu; Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Mehmet Nuri Bodakci; Necmettin Penbegul; Murat Atar; Yasar Bozkurt; Haluk Söylemez; Mesrur Selcuk Silay; Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoğlu; Tolga Akman; Abdullah Armagan
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-08-09       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Dornier Lithotripter S 220 F EMSE: the first report of over 1000 treatments.

Authors:  Salvatore Micali; Maria C Sighinolfi; Marco Grande; Massimo Rivalta; Stefano De Stefani; Giampaolo Bianchi
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 2.649

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Uncovering the real outcomes of active renal stone treatment by utilizing non-contrast computer tomography: a systematic review of the current literature.

Authors:  Theodoros Tokas; Martin Habicher; Daniel Junker; Thomas Herrmann; Jan Peter Jessen; Thomas Knoll; Udo Nagele
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Clinical application of the therapeutic ultrasound in urologic disease: Part II of therapeutic ultrasound in urology.

Authors:  Minh-Tung Do; Tam Hoai Ly; Min Joo Choi; Sung Yong Cho
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2022-05-16

Review 3.  Does previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wei Wang; Liao Peng; Xingpeng Di; Xiaoshuai Gao; Xin Wei
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-05

4.  Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones.

Authors:  Tsung-Hsin Chang; Wun-Rong Lin; Wei-Kung Tsai; Pai-Kai Chiang; Marcelo Chen; Jen-Shu Tseng; Allen W Chiu
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 2.264

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.