Literature DB >> 28220189

Simple and practical nomograms for predicting the stone-free rate after shock wave lithotripsy in patients with a solitary upper ureteral stone.

Naoya Niwa1, Kazuhiro Matsumoto2, Makoto Miyahara3, Minami Omura1, Hiroaki Kobayashi1, Eiji Kikuchi1, Akira Miyajima1, Kazutoyo Miyata3, Mototsugu Oya1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop practical nomograms for predicting the stone-free rate after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with a solitary stone in the proximal ureter.
METHODS: Between July 2006 and June 2015, 319 patients with a proximal ureteral stone who underwent preoperative non-contrast enhanced computed tomography (NCCT) and subsequently received SWL were identified. Patients' age, gender, laterality, stone size, mean and maximum Hounsfield Unit (HU) of the stone, and skin-to-stone distance (SSD) were assessed. The stone-free status was defined as no radiopacity detected on the 3-month follow-up plain radiography or NCCT.
RESULTS: Mean stone size was 10 mm (range 3-20 mm). Mean and maximum HU of the stone ranged from 115 to 1447 (mean 701) and from 265 to 1881 (mean 1062), respectively. The overall stone-free rate was 70%. Multivariate analyses identified stone size (p < 0.001), maximum HU (p < 0.001), and SSD at 90° (p = 0.038) as independent predictive factors for the stone-free status after SWL. Nomograms could be constructed for predicting the probability of stone-free status after SWL corresponding to SSD of 8, 10, and 12 cm using maximum HU and stone size.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that stone size, maximum HU of the stone, and SSD at 90° are significant predictors of successful SWL outcome in patients with a proximal ureteral stone. We have developed simple and practical nomograms corresponding to three different SSDs for predicting the stone-free rate after SWL.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hounsfield unit; Lithotripsy; Nomograms; Shock wave lithotripsy; Skin-to-stone distance; Urinary calculi

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28220189     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-017-2014-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  25 in total

1.  Factors determining analgesic and sedative drug requirements during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  A S Salinas; J Lorenzo-Romero; M Segura; M R Calero; I Hernández-Millán; M Martínez-Martín; J A Virseda
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  Variation in clinical outcome following shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  N F Logarakis; M A Jewett; J Luymes; R J Honey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I.

Authors:  Dean Assimos; Amy Krambeck; Nicole L Miller; Manoj Monga; M Hassan Murad; Caleb P Nelson; Kenneth T Pace; Vernon M Pais; Margaret S Pearle; Glenn M Preminger; Hassan Razvi; Ojas Shah; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  A clinical nomogram to predict the successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteral calculi.

Authors:  Joshua D Wiesenthal; Daniela Ghiculete; A Andrew Ray; R John D'A Honey; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large-scale study at a single institution.

Authors:  Taku Abe; Koichiro Akakura; Makoto Kawaguchi; Takeshi Ueda; Tomohiko Ichikawa; Haruo Ito; Kuniyoshi Nozumi; Kazuhiro Suzuki
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Kent Kanao; Jun Nakashima; Ken Nakagawa; Hirotaka Asakura; Akira Miyajima; Mototsugu Oya; Takashi Ohigashi; Masaru Murai
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Comparison of efficacy of German and Chinese electromagnetic shock wave lithotripters: Dornier Compact S vs Huikang MZ-SWL-V.

Authors:  Luming Shen; Xizhao Sun; Xiaoming Cong; Ying Wang; Huaijun Zhu; Lei He
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 8.  EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis.

Authors:  Christian Türk; Aleš Petřík; Kemal Sarica; Christian Seitz; Andreas Skolarikos; Michael Straub; Thomas Knoll
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Computed Tomography-Based Novel Prediction Model for the Outcome of Shockwave Lithotripsy in Proximal Ureteral Stones.

Authors:  Hong Seok Park; Mi Kyung Gong; Cheol Yong Yoon; Du Geon Moon; Jun Cheon; Young Deuk Choi
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Low energy lithotripsy with the Lithostar: treatment results with 19,962 renal and ureteral calculi.

Authors:  T B Mobley; D A Myers; W B Grine; J M Jenkins; W R Jordan
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  2 in total

1.  The usefulness of the maximum Hounsfield units (HU) in predicting the shockwave lithotripsy outcome for ureteral stones and the proposal of novel indicators using the maximum HU.

Authors:  Yusuke Sugino; Takahiro Kato; Shigeru Furuya; Takeshi Sasaki; Kiminobu Arima; Yoshiki Sugimura
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Can intervals in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy sessions affect success in the treatment of upper ureteral stones?

Authors:  Turgay Turan; Ozgur Efioglu; Yavuz Onur Danacioglu; Furkan Sendogan; Meftun Culpan; Bilal Gunaydin; Ramazan Gokhan Atis; Turhan Caskurlu; Asif Yildirim
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 1.195

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.