Literature DB >> 27687681

Comparison of escalating, constant, and reduction energy output in ESWL for renal stones: multi-arm prospective randomized study.

Danny M Rabah1, Mohamed S Mabrouki1, Karim H Farhat2, Mohamed A Seida3, Mostafa A Arafa4, Riyadh F Talic5.   

Abstract

This study was designed to find out the optimized energy delivery strategy in Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) that yield to the best stone-free rate (SFR). In this clinical trial, 150 consecutive patients were randomized into three groups: (a) Dose escalation, 1500 SW at 18 kV, followed by 1500 SW at 20 kV then 1500 SW at 22 kV. (b) Constant dose, 4500 SW at 20 kV. All patients undergo plain X-ray film of the urinary tract at day 1, 14, and 90 to assess stone-free rate (SFR) which was defined as no stones or painless fragments less than 4 mm. (c) Dose reduction, 1500 SW at 22 kV, followed by 1500 SW at 20 kV and then 1500 SW at 18 kV. The three treatment groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, stone size and distribution of the kidneys, and the need for Double J stent use. On day 90, the SFR achieved was 82, 90, and 84 % in the escalating, constant, and reduction energy groups, respectively. However, this rate was not statistically significant (x 2 = 1.38, p level = 0.28). At a slow rate of 60 shocks, there was no difference in stone-free rate between different voltages at 1, 14, and 90 days. Our randomized clinical trial showed no statistically significant difference in SFR between the three groups while using the slow SWL rate. Our trial is the first randomized trial comparing the three strategies. As such, a dose adjustment strategy while delivering SWL in slow rate was not recommended.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dose constant; Dose escalating; Dose reduction; Renal stones; Shock wave lithotripsy; Stone-free rate

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27687681     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-016-0912-7

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


  13 in total

1.  Optimal frequency in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Erdal Yilmaz; Ertan Batislam; Murad Basar; Devrim Tuglu; Cagatay Mert; Halil Basar
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Progressive increase of lithotripter output produces better in-vivo stone comminution.

Authors:  Michaella E Maloney; Charles G Marguet; Yufeng Zhou; David E Kang; Jeffery C Sung; W Patrick Springhart; John Madden; Pei Zhong; Glenn M Preminger
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  Factors determining stone-free rate in shock wave lithotripsy using standard focus of Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter.

Authors:  Mohamed A Elkoushy; Jacob A Hassan; Douglas D Morehouse; Maurice Anidjar; Sero Andonian
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-05-07       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Optimization of treatment strategy used during shockwave lithotripsy to maximize stone fragmentation efficiency.

Authors:  Daniel Z Yong; Michael E Lipkin; W Neal Simmons; Georgy Sankin; David M Albala; Pei Zhong; Glenn M Preminger
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  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

6.  Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL): outcomes from a national SWL database in New Zealand.

Authors:  Cameron E Alexander; Stuart Gowland; Jon Cadwallader; John M Reynard; Benjamin W Turney
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Relationship between the frequency of piezoelectric shock waves and the quality of renal stone fragmentation. In vitro study and clinical implications.

Authors:  G Vallancien; R Munoz; M Borghi; B Veillon; J M Brisset; M Daudon
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Natural history of residual renal stone fragments after ESWL.

Authors:  C Candau; C Saussine; H Lang; C Roy; F Faure; D Jacqmin
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Optimizing shock wave lithotripsy: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Paul D McClain; Jessica N Lange; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2013

10.  Clinical experience with shock-wave lithotripsy using the Siemens Modularis Vario lithotripter.

Authors:  Mohamed E Hassouna; Samir Oraby; Wael Sameh; Ahmed El-Abbady
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2011-09-09
View more
  3 in total

1.  Energy output modalities of shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of urinary stones: escalating or fixed voltage? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zihao He; Tuo Deng; Shanfeng Yin; Zihao Xu; Haifeng Duan; Yeda Chen; Xiaolu Duan; Guohua Zeng
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-12-07       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Optimisation of shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review of technical aspects to improve outcomes.

Authors:  Su-Min Lee; Neil Collin; Helen Wiseman; Joe Philip
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-09

3.  Outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones according to ESWL intensity.

Authors:  Ji Hyung Yoon; Sejun Park; Seong Cheol Kim; Sungchan Park; Kyung Hyun Moon; Sang Hyeon Cheon; Taekmin Kwon
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-04
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.