Literature DB >> 28756458

Comparison of intermediate- and low-frequency shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric kidney stones.

Onur Kaygısız1, Hakan Kılıçarslan2, Ahmet Mert2, Burhan Coşkun2, Yakup Kordan2.   

Abstract

The aim of the study to compare low and intermediate shock wave frequency rates in terms of success and complications for treating pediatric kidney stones. This retrospective study was performed on 58 consecutive pediatric patients (24 girls, 34 boys) who underwent shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for kidney stones with an electrohydraulic lithotripter between April 2014 and March 2016. In the first year, all children underwent SWL with a frequency of 90 SWs/min as an intermediate frequency (Group 90), and in the second year all children were treated by SWL using 60 SWs/min as a low frequency (Group 60). The mean age of the patients was 5.87 ± 4.5 years. There were no significant differences in age, gender, stone characteristics and SWL energy level between the groups. Stone-free status was achieved in 14, 6 and 4 children in group 60; and in 10, 6 and 4 children in group 90 after one, two and three sessions, respectively. The stone-free rates were 80 and 74.1% after SWL and 90 and 88.9% after additional treatment in groups 60 and 90, respectively. The total median shock pulses were 2000 and 3600 in groups 60 and 90, respectively (p = 0.115). Efficiency quotients were 51.93 and 44.47 in groups 60 and 90, respectively. The mean total anesthesia times and complication rates did not differ between the groups. The low and intermediate frequency of SWL provided similar stone clearance in pediatric renal stones with similar anesthesia times. However, low SWL tended to need fewer shock pulses (2000/3600) for stone clearance, but the trend was not significant.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Child; Complications; High-energy shock waves; Kidney calculi; Urolithiasis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28756458     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-017-1002-1

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


  14 in total

1.  Does the rate of extracorporeal shock wave delivery affect stone fragmentation?

Authors:  A Greenstein; H Matzkin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Why stones break better at slow shockwave rates than at fast rates: in vitro study with a research electrohydraulic lithotripter.

Authors:  Yuri A Pishchalnikov; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Irina V Pishchalnikova; R Jason Vonderhaar
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  Acoustic bubble removal to enhance SWL efficacy at high shock rate: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Alexander P Duryea; William W Roberts; Charles A Cain; Hedieh A Tamaddoni; Timothy L Hall
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  A new nomogram for prediction of outcome of pediatric shock-wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Hasan Serkan Dogan; Mesut Altan; Burak Citamak; Ali Cansu Bozaci; Erdem Karabulut; Serdar Tekgul
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 1.830

5.  Therapeutic efficacy of Dornier MPL 9000 for prevesical calculi as judged by efficiency quotient.

Authors:  M H Ather; A Memon
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  Nomogram and scoring system for predicting stone-free status after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children with urolithiasis.

Authors:  Bulent Onal; Nejat Tansu; Oktay Demirkesen; Veli Yalcin; Lin Huang; Hiep T Nguyen; Bartley G Cilento; Ahmet Erozenci
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 7.  Shock wave lithotripsy: advances in technology and technique.

Authors:  James E Lingeman; James A McAteer; Ehud Gnessin; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 14.432

8.  Factors affecting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for unilateral urinary stones in children: a 17-year single-institute experience.

Authors:  U-Seok Jeong; Sinwoo Lee; Junghun Kang; Deok Hyun Han; Kwan Hyun Park; Minki Baek
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2013-07-15

9.  Slow vs rapid delivery rate shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Hosni Khairy Salem; Hesham Fathy; Hanny Elfayoumy; Hussein Aly; Ahmed Ghonium; Mostafa A Mohsen; Abd El Rahim Hegazy
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 10.  Comparison of High, Intermediate, and Low Frequency Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Urinary Tract Stone Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Dong Hyuk Kang; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Ham; Hyungmin Lee; Jong Kyou Kwon; Young Deuk Choi; Joo Yong Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  4 in total

1.  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

2.  Which frequency is better for pediatric shock wave lithotripsy? Intermediate or low: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Onur Kaygisiz; Mehmet Cagatay Cicek; Ahmet Mert; Selcan Akesen; Emre Sarandol; Hakan Kilicarslan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  What is the optimal frequency in shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal stones? A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Murat Tuncer; Alper Kafkaslı; Utku Can; Alper Çoşkun; Bilal Eryıldırım; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Efficacy of Super-Mini-PCNL and Ureteroscopy in Kidney Stone Sufferers and Risk Factors of Postoperative Infection.

Authors:  Wenbing Yuan; Yingyi Li; Yu Dai; Cheng Luo; Hui Zhang; Haijun Xiong
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 2.682

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.