Literature DB >> 26914829

Using a three-dimensional computer assisted stone volume estimates to evaluate extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of kidney stones.

Lene Hyldgaard Bigum1, Peter Sommer Ulriksen2, Omar Salah Omar3.   

Abstract

This study describes and evaluates the use of non-contrast enhanced computerized tomography (NCCT) before and after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). Computer measured stone volume was used as an exact measurement for treatment response. 81 patients received SWL of kidney stones at Herlev Hospital between April 2013 and January 2014 and follow-up was possible in 77 (95 %) patients. NCCT was used before and after treatment. Treatment response was expressed as a reduction of the stone volume. Stone characteristics as the stone volumes, HU, SSD and localization were measured by radiologist using a vendor non-specific computer program. Complications, patient characteristics and additional treatment were registered. On average, 5858 shocks were given each patient. The follow-up NCCT was performed 24 days after treatment. It was possible to calculate the stone volume in 88 % of the patients-the remaining 12 % it was not possible due to stone disintegration. The stone free rate was 22 %. The average relative reduction in stone burden was 62 %. Only 8 % of the patients were radiological non-responders. Steinstrasse was observed in 13 (17 %) and 28 (36 %) patients had additional treatment performed. Irradiation dose per NCCT was 2.6 mSv. Stone volume could be calculated in most patients. The relative reduction in stone burden after treatment was 62 %. The stone volume was redundant when evaluating stone free patients, but in cases of partial response it gave an exact quantification, to be used in the further management and follow-up of the patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Efficacy; Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL); Non-contrast-enhanced computerized tomography (NCCT); Outcome; Residual fragments, nephrolithiasis; Stone free rate; Stone volume

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26914829     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-016-0864-y

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


  25 in total

Review 1.  Artifacts in ECG-synchronized MDCT coronary angiography.

Authors:  L J M Kroft; A de Roos; J Geleijns
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tilo Niemann; Thilo Kollmann; Georg Bongartz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  CT for evaluation of urolithiasis: image quality of ultralow-dose (Sub mSv) CT with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction and diagnostic performance of low-dose CT with statistical iterative reconstruction.

Authors:  Joonho Hur; Sung Bin Park; Jong Beum Lee; Hyun Jeong Park; In Ho Chang; Jong Kyou Kwon; Yang Soo Kim
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2015-10

4.  How do the residual fragments after SWL affect the health-related quality of life? A critical analysis in a size-based manner.

Authors:  Cahit Sahin; Alper Kafkasli; Cihangir A Cetinel; Fehmi Narter; Erkin Saglam; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  A qualitative study exploring male cancer patients' experiences with percutaneous nephrostomy.

Authors:  Lene Hyldgaard Bigum; Marlène Elisabeth Spielmann; Gitte Juhl; Annlise Rasmussen
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 1.612

6.  Can the CT planning image determine whether a kidney stone is radiopaque on a plain KUB?

Authors:  Ole Graumann; Susanne S Osther; Diana Spasojevic; Palle J S Osther
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2011-08-18

7.  Quantification of asymptomatic kidney stone burden by computed tomography for predicting future symptomatic stone events.

Authors:  Michael G Selby; Terri J Vrtiska; Amy E Krambeck; Cynthia H McCollough; Hisham E Elsherbiny; Eric J Bergstralh; John C Lieske; Andrew D Rule
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 8.  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

9.  Comparative results of shockwave lithotripsy for renal calculi in upper, middle, and lower calices.

Authors:  Burak Turna; Fatih Ekren; Oktay Nazli; Kaan Akbay; Baris Altay; Ceyhun Ozyurt; Necmettin Cikili
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Management of Clinically Insignificant Residual Fragments following Shock Wave Lithotripsy.

Authors:  Elisa Cicerello; Franco Merlo; Luigi Maccatrozzo
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2012-05-31
View more
  1 in total

1.  Differentiation of ureteral stones and phleboliths using Hounsfield units on computerized tomography: a new method without observer bias.

Authors:  Yiloren Tanidir; Ahmet Sahan; Mehmet Kazim Asutay; Tarik Emre Sener; Farhad Talibzade; Asgar Garayev; Ilker Tinay; Cagri Akin Sekerci; Ferruh Simsek
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 3.436

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.