Literature DB >> 29761687

Emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy as opposed to delayed shockwave lithotripsy for the treatment of acute renal colic due to obstructive ureteral stone: a prospective randomized trial.

Stefano Bucci1, Paolo Umari2, Michele Rizzo1, Nicola Pavan1, Giovanni Liguori1, Fabio Barbone3, Carlo Trombetta1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eSWL) as first-line treatment in patients with acute colic due to obstructive ureteral stone.
METHODS: Seventy-four patients were randomized to emergency SWL within 12 hours (eSWL group) and deferred SWL later than 3 days (dSWL group). Follow-up included ultrasound, KUB (kidney-ureter-bladder) radiography and CT (computed tomography) scan at 24 hours, 7 days, 1 and 3 months from the treatment. When necessary, repeated SWL (re-SWL) or ureteroscopy (auxiliary-URS) was performed. Preoperative and postoperative data were compared and stone free rates (SFR) and efficiency quotients (EQ) were evaluated. Analyses were performed using SAS software.
RESULTS: Complete data of 70 patients were collected. 36 underwent eSWL and 34 dSWL. The mean patient age was 48.7. Mean stone size was 9.8 mm (CI 95%: 8.9-10.8). 25 (35.7%) were proximal and 45 (64.3%) distal. Mean SWL energy was 19.2 kV (CI 95%: 18.5-19.9) and mean number of shocks was 2657 (CI 95%: 2513-2802). eSWL patients needs less auxiliary-URS than dSWL patients (13.9% vs. 44.1%, P=0.039) and less re-SWL sessions (8.3% vs. 32.4%, P=0.093). SFR at 24 hours was 52.8% and 11.8% (P<0.001) and the EQ at 3 months was 79.1% and 57.5% in the eSWL and dSWL group respectively. Patients from the dSWL group spent more time in the hospital (2.21 vs. 1.36 days, P=0.046) and complication rates between the two groups were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: eSWL is a safe procedure and delivers high SFR even within 24 hours especially for <10 mm stones. It is able to reduce the number of auxiliary procedures and hospitalization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29761687     DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03084-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Minerva Urol Nefrol        ISSN: 0393-2249            Impact factor:   3.720


  4 in total

1.  Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT.

Authors:  Ranan Dasgupta; Sarah Cameron; Lorna Aucott; Graeme MacLennan; Mary M Kilonzo; Thomas Bl Lam; Ruth Thomas; John Norrie; Alison McDonald; Ken Anson; James N'Dow; Neil Burgess; Charles T Clark; Francis X Keeley; Sara J MacLennan; Kath Starr; Samuel McClinton
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone.

Authors:  Abdullatif Al-Terki; Majd Alkabbani; Talal A Alenezi; Tariq F Al-Shaiji; Shabir Al-Mousawi; Ahmed R El-Nahas
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2020-08-25

3.  Contemporary treatment trends for upper urinary tract stones in a total population analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2019: will shock wave lithotripsy become extinct?

Authors:  Roman Herout; Martin Baunacke; Christer Groeben; Cem Aksoy; Björn Volkmer; Marcel Schmidt; Nicole Eisenmenger; Rainer Koch; Sven Oehlschläger; Christian Thomas; Johannes Huber
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-08-28       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Predictors of successful emergency shock wave lithotripsy for acute renal colic.

Authors:  Adel Kurkar; Ahmad A Elderwy; Mahmoud M Osman; Islam F Abdelkawi; Mahmoud M Shalaby; Mohamed F Abdelhafez
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2022-06-03       Impact factor: 2.861

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.