Alireza Aminsharifi1,2,3, Dariush Irani1, Hossein Amirzargar1. 1. Department of Urology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. 2. Department of Laparoscopy Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. 3. Department of Duke University Medical Center, Department of Surgery, Division of Urologic Surgery, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) on post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) residual fragments (RFs) versus primary stones of the same size through a matched pair study. METHODS: Patients with a single 5-15 mm fragment 3 months after PCNL were enrolled (study group n = 59). The control group (n = 67) consisted of all adult patients with a single 5-15 mm renal stone. RESULTS: The success rate of SWL was significantly higher in the study group (81.4 vs. 59.7%; p = 0.008; OR: 2.95). With a cutoff point of Hounsfield units (HU) 750: the success rate was significantly lower in patients with a stone HU ≥ 750 (OR: 3.488). This HU cutoff value had no effect on the outcome of SWL in patients with post-PCNL RF (p = 0.14). On the other hand, the outcome of SWL was significantly more favorable in control group when HU < 750 (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The success rate of SWL was 2.95-fold higher for post-PCNL RFs than in a stone burden-matched control group. The likelihood of stone clearance after SWL was 3.488-fold greater when HU was less than 750. This effect of HU was more prominent in patients receiving SWL for their primary stones while SWL was evenly effective on post PCNL RFs with different HUs.
AIMS: To compare the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) on post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) residual fragments (RFs) versus primary stones of the same size through a matched pair study. METHODS: Patients with a single 5-15 mm fragment 3 months after PCNL were enrolled (study group n = 59). The control group (n = 67) consisted of all adult patients with a single 5-15 mm renal stone. RESULTS: The success rate of SWL was significantly higher in the study group (81.4 vs. 59.7%; p = 0.008; OR: 2.95). With a cutoff point of Hounsfield units (HU) 750: the success rate was significantly lower in patients with a stone HU ≥ 750 (OR: 3.488). This HU cutoff value had no effect on the outcome of SWL in patients with post-PCNL RF (p = 0.14). On the other hand, the outcome of SWL was significantly more favorable in control group when HU < 750 (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The success rate of SWL was 2.95-fold higher for post-PCNL RFs than in a stone burden-matched control group. The likelihood of stone clearance after SWL was 3.488-fold greater when HU was less than 750. This effect of HU was more prominent in patients receiving SWL for their primary stones while SWL was evenly effective on post PCNL RFs with different HUs.
Authors: Lianping Zhang; Fenghua Peng; Luoyan Yang; Xiaokun Zhao; Jinrui Yang; Xuanzhi Zhang Journal: Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban Date: 2009-07
Authors: Dedan Opondo; Stavros Gravas; Andrian Joyce; Margaret Pearle; Tadashi Matsuda; Ying-Hao Sun; Dean Assimos; John Denstedt; Jean de la Rosette Journal: J Endourol Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Mahesh Desai; Antonello De Lisa; Burak Turna; Jorge Rioja; Helena Walfridsson; Alessandro D'Addessi; Carson Wong; Jean Rosette On Behalf Of The Croes Pcnl Study Group Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Jean de la Rosette; Dean Assimos; Mahesh Desai; Jorge Gutierrez; James Lingeman; Roberto Scarpa; Ahmet Tefekli Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Maria A Jepperson; El-Sayed H Ibrahim; Abby Taylor; Joseph G Cernigliaro; William E Haley; David D Thiel Journal: Urology Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 2.649