Literature DB >> 33890144

Which frequency is better for pediatric shock wave lithotripsy? Intermediate or low: a prospective randomized study.

Onur Kaygisiz1, Mehmet Cagatay Cicek2, Ahmet Mert3, Selcan Akesen4, Emre Sarandol5, Hakan Kilicarslan2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first option in the treatment of pediatric kidney stones; however, optimal frequency is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare low frequency [60 shocks per minute (SWs/min)] and intermediate frequency [90 SWs/min] in terms of lithotripsy success, complications, cardiac arrhythmia, anesthesia time, secondary procedures, and efficiency quotient (EQ) in children.
METHODS: Seventy-eight consecutive children who received SWL for radiopaque renal stones between July 2016 and January 2020 were randomly divided into two groups: Group 60 (SWL frequency: 60 SWs/min) and Group 90 (SWL frequency: 90 SWs/min). After exclusion (remaining 71 children), Group 60 (n = 38) and Group 90 (n = 33) were compared using univariate analysis.
RESULTS: The median age of children (37 girls, 34 boys) was 5 (1-16) years. Patient demographics and stone features were similar between the groups. Success rate after the last SWL session was 81.6% (n = 31) for Group 60 and 87.9% (n = 29) for Group 90 (p = 0.527). Stone-free rate after the first, second, and third sessions was 42.1%, 18.4%, and 21.1% for Group 60 and 48.5%, 27.3%, and 12.1% for Group 90, respectively. Additional treatment rate was similar between the groups. In Group 60, the EQ was 57.83, and it was 64.07 in Group 90. Median total anesthesia time was significantly longer in Group 60 (74.5 min) than in Group 90 (32 min; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Intermediate frequency and low-frequency pediatric SWL have similar success rates; however, intermediate-frequency SWL has a shorter anesthesia time.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Child; Complications; High-energy shock waves; Kidney calculi; Lithotripsy; Urolithiasis

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33890144     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03696-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  25 in total

1.  Does the rate of extracorporeal shock wave delivery affect stone fragmentation?

Authors:  A Greenstein; H Matzkin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Slow versus fast shock wave lithotripsy rate for urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Khaled Madbouly; Abdel Moneim El-Tiraifi; Mohamed Seida; Salah R El-Faqih; Ramiz Atassi; Riyadh F Talic
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Comparison of intermediate- and low-frequency shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric kidney stones.

Authors:  Onur Kaygısız; Hakan Kılıçarslan; Ahmet Mert; Burhan Coşkun; Yakup Kordan
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-07-29       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Piezoelectric lithotripsy of ureteral stones: influence of shockwave frequency on sedation and therapeutic efficiency.

Authors:  M Robert; E Rakotomalala; O Delbos; H Navratil
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Therapeutic efficacy of Dornier MPL 9000 for prevesical calculi as judged by efficiency quotient.

Authors:  M H Ather; A Memon
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 6.  The effect of shock wave rate on the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michelle Jo Semins; Bruce J Trock; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-11-14       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Clinical predictors of stone fragmentation using slow-rate shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Wei-Ming Li; Wen-Jeng Wu; Yii-Her Chou; Chia-Chu Liu; Chii-Jye Wang; Chun-Hsiung Huang; Yung-Chin Lee
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.089

8.  Slow vs rapid delivery rate shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal urolithiasis: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Hosni Khairy Salem; Hesham Fathy; Hanny Elfayoumy; Hussein Aly; Ahmed Ghonium; Mostafa A Mohsen; Abd El Rahim Hegazy
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  SWL outcome in artificial hydronephrotic vs. non-hydronephrotic kidney for preschool children with high-density renal stones.

Authors:  Mostafa AbdelRazek; Ahmed Hassan; Mohammed S AbdelKader; Ahmad Abolyosr
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  Comparison of High, Intermediate, and Low Frequency Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Urinary Tract Stone Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Dong Hyuk Kang; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Ham; Hyungmin Lee; Jong Kyou Kwon; Young Deuk Choi; Joo Yong Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.