Wenqi Wu1, Zhou Yang1, Fengling Tang1, Changbao Xu2, Youzhi Wang2, Xiaojian Gu3, Xuehua Chen3, Rongjiang Wang4, Jiaka Yan4, Xiang Wang5, Wenxi Gao6, Chunhua Hou6, Jianming Guo7, Jian Zhang7, Alberto Gurioli8, Zhangqun Ye9, Guohua Zeng10. 1. Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, 510230, China. 2. Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China. 3. Department of Urology, The Chinese Medicine Hospital of Jiangsu Province, Nanjing, China. 4. Department of Urology, The People's Hospital of Huzhou, Huzhou, China. 5. Department of Urology, The Tongji Hospital of Huazhong Science and Technology University, Wuhan, China. 6. Department of Urology, The Chinese Medicine Hospital of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China. 7. Department of Urology, The Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 8. Department of Urology, Turin University of Studies, Turin, Italy. 9. Department of Urology, The Tongji Hospital of Huazhong Science and Technology University, Wuhan, China. Zhangqun_ye@163.com. 10. Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, 510230, China. gzgyzgh@vip.tom.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To asset the efficacy and safety of EPVL plus ESWL compared with ESWL alone for the treatment of simple upper urinary stones (< 15 mm). MATERIALS AND METHODS:All patients with upper urinary stones (< 15 mm) were prospectively randomized into two groups. In treatment group, patients were assigned to immediate EPVL after ESWL, while in control group, ESWL alone was offered. All patients were reexamined at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after ESWL. Stone size, stone location, stone-free rate (SFR), and complication rate were compared. RESULTS:56 males and 20 females in treatment group were compared to 52 male and 25 females in control group (p = 0.404). Median ages were 42.9 ± 1.5 years in treatment group and 42.7 ± 1.3 years in control group (p = 0.943). Median stone size was 10.0 ± 0.4 mm (3-15 mm) in treatment group and 10.4 ± 0.4 mm (4-15 mm) in control group (p = 0.622). The stone clearance rate in treatment and control group at 1 week after ESWL was 51.3% (39/76) and 45.4% (35/77) (p > 0.05), at 2 weeks was 81.6% (62/76) and 64.9% (50/77) (p < 0.05), and at 4 weeks was 90.8% (69/76) and 75.3% (58/77) (p < 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:EPVL is a noninvasive, effective, and safe adjunctive treatment which increases and accelerates upper urinary stones discharge after ESWL treatment.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To asset the efficacy and safety of EPVL plus ESWL compared with ESWL alone for the treatment of simple upper urinary stones (< 15 mm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with upper urinary stones (< 15 mm) were prospectively randomized into two groups. In treatment group, patients were assigned to immediate EPVL after ESWL, while in control group, ESWL alone was offered. All patients were reexamined at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after ESWL. Stone size, stone location, stone-free rate (SFR), and complication rate were compared. RESULTS: 56 males and 20 females in treatment group were compared to 52 male and 25 females in control group (p = 0.404). Median ages were 42.9 ± 1.5 years in treatment group and 42.7 ± 1.3 years in control group (p = 0.943). Median stone size was 10.0 ± 0.4 mm (3-15 mm) in treatment group and 10.4 ± 0.4 mm (4-15 mm) in control group (p = 0.622). The stone clearance rate in treatment and control group at 1 week after ESWL was 51.3% (39/76) and 45.4% (35/77) (p > 0.05), at 2 weeks was 81.6% (62/76) and 64.9% (50/77) (p < 0.05), and at 4 weeks was 90.8% (69/76) and 75.3% (58/77) (p < 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EPVL is a noninvasive, effective, and safe adjunctive treatment which increases and accelerates upper urinary stones discharge after ESWL treatment.
Entities:
Keywords:
EPVL; ESWL; Randomized controlled trial; Upper urinary stone
Authors: Chad R Tracy; Stacey L McLeroy; Sara L Best; Bruce E Gnade; Margaret S Pearle; Jeffrey A Cadeddu Journal: Urology Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 2.649