Zihao He1,2,3, Tuo Deng1,2,3, Shanfeng Yin1,2,3, Zihao Xu1,2,3, Haifeng Duan1,2,3, Yeda Chen1,2,3, Xiaolu Duan1,2,3, Guohua Zeng4,5,6. 1. Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Kangda Road 1#, Haizhu District, Guangzhou, 510230, Guangdong, China. 2. Guangzhou Institute of Urology, Guangzhou, China. 3. Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China. 4. Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Kangda Road 1#, Haizhu District, Guangzhou, 510230, Guangdong, China. gzgyzgh@vip.tom.com. 5. Guangzhou Institute of Urology, Guangzhou, China. gzgyzgh@vip.tom.com. 6. Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China. gzgyzgh@vip.tom.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of escalating and fixed energy output modalities of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in the treatment of urinary stones. METHODS: A systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed to obtain relevant studies up to December 2018. Summarized mean differences (MDs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for comparing continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Six RCTs including 775 patients were identified. In the overall pooled outcomes, no significant difference was detected between escalating and fixed voltage group regarding initial and final success rate (SR) and stone-free status (SFS), auxiliary procedure and complication (hematoma, febrile episode, and pain) rate. However, when shockwave frequency ≥ 90 shocks/min, total shocks per session ≤ 3000, or 1-3 SWL sessions were performed, escalating group was associated with significantly higher SR1 (defined as SFS + fragments ≤ 4 mm); in addition, escalating group brought significantly less hematoma when total shocks per session ≤ 3000. CONCLUSIONS: Escalating voltage SWL offered comparable safety and effectiveness to that of fixed voltage SWL. However, escalating voltage SWL could be recommended in following conditions: (1) shockwave frequency ≥ 90 shocks/min, total shocks per session ≤ 3000, or 1-3 SWL sessions, for better stone removal; (2) total shocks per session ≤ 3000, for less hematoma formation.
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of escalating and fixed energy output modalities of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in the treatment of urinary stones. METHODS: A systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed to obtain relevant studies up to December 2018. Summarized mean differences (MDs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for comparing continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Six RCTs including 775 patients were identified. In the overall pooled outcomes, no significant difference was detected between escalating and fixed voltage group regarding initial and final success rate (SR) and stone-free status (SFS), auxiliary procedure and complication (hematoma, febrile episode, and pain) rate. However, when shockwave frequency ≥ 90 shocks/min, total shocks per session ≤ 3000, or 1-3 SWL sessions were performed, escalating group was associated with significantly higher SR1 (defined as SFS + fragments ≤ 4 mm); in addition, escalating group brought significantly less hematoma when total shocks per session ≤ 3000. CONCLUSIONS: Escalating voltage SWL offered comparable safety and effectiveness to that of fixed voltage SWL. However, escalating voltage SWL could be recommended in following conditions: (1) shockwave frequency ≥ 90 shocks/min, total shocks per session ≤ 3000, or 1-3 SWL sessions, for better stone removal; (2) total shocks per session ≤ 3000, for less hematoma formation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Energy output modality; Meta-analysis; Shockwave lithotripsy; Urinary stone
Authors: Michaella E Maloney; Charles G Marguet; Yufeng Zhou; David E Kang; Jeffery C Sung; W Patrick Springhart; John Madden; Pei Zhong; Glenn M Preminger Journal: J Endourol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Danny M Rabah; Mohamed S Mabrouki; Karim H Farhat; Mohamed A Seida; Mostafa A Arafa; Riyadh F Talic Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Veronika Skuginna; Daniel P Nguyen; Roland Seiler; Bernhard Kiss; George N Thalmann; Beat Roth Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-01