Literature DB >> 3343734

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones: a retrospective analysis of 417 cases.

J Graff1, J Pastor, P J Funke, P Mach, T Senge.   

Abstract

We treated 417 patients with upper ureteral stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. All patients with obstructing stones underwent retrograde manipulation, which was successful in 57 per cent. Management of obstructing stones in situ (215 patients) with and without decompression of the collecting system required additional treatments in 13 per cent and ancillary procedures in 25 per cent. Nonocclusive ureteral stones were not manipulated. Treatment of these stones in situ slightly increased the need for postoperative ancillary procedures, compared to successful repositioning into the kidney (5.9 versus 3 per cent). Secondary treatments, however, were necessary as often as with occlusive stones. The main reason for failure of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was the lack of fluid around an impacted stone. An energy absorptive effect of muscle tissue for stones projecting on the psoas muscle could not be demonstrated. The best and most consistent results were obtained when the stone was manipulated successfully into the renal collecting system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3343734     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42507-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  9 in total

1.  In situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for upper ureteral stones: experience with 65 patients.

Authors:  I Başar; T Gürpinar; A Erkan
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 2.  ESWL '90--state of the art. Limitations and future trends of shock-wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  J Rassweiler; P Alken
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  1990

Review 3.  Ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy: technologic advancements.

Authors:  B Alexander; A I Fishman; M Grasso
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  ESWL in situ or ureteroscopy for ureteric stones?

Authors:  J Hofbauer; C Tuerk; K Höbarth; R Hasun; M Marberger
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteric stones: supine or prone.

Authors:  Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu; Mustafa Burak Hoscan; Mehmet Ilteris Tekin; Tufan Cicek; Bulent Ozturk; Hakan Ozkardes
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-10-21

6.  Extracorporeal lithotripsy and combined surgical procedures in the treatment of renoureteral stone disease: our experience with 2,955 patients.

Authors:  P Rigatti; F Francesca; F Montorsi; P Consonni; G Guazzoni; V Di Girolamo
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1989 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Lithotripter outcomes in a community practice setting: comparison of an electromagnetic and an electrohydraulic lithotripter.

Authors:  Naeem Bhojani; Jessica A Mandeville; Tariq A Hameed; Trevor M Soergel; James A McAteer; James C Williams; Amy E Krambeck; James E Lingeman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Management of upper ureteral stones exceeding 15 mm in diameter: Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy with holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy.

Authors:  Hamdy Aboutaleb; Mohamed Omar; Shady Salem; Mohamed Elshazly
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2016-12-20

9.  Effects of Shock Waves on Expression of IL-6, IL-8, MCP-1, and TNF-α Expression by Human Periodontal Ligament Fibroblasts: An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Zhiyu Cai; Frank Falkensammer; Oleh Andrukhov; Jiang Chen; Rainer Mittermayr; Xiaohui Rausch-Fan
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2016-03-20
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.