Literature DB >> 35969268

Extremely slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones.

Shinya Somiya1, Shigeki Koterazawa1, Katsuhiro Ito1, Takao Haitani1, Hitoshi Yamada1, Toru Kanno2.   

Abstract

To elucidate and compare the efficacy and safety of the reduced (30 shocks/min with 1200 shocks/session) and standard protocols (60 shocks/min with 2400 shocks/session) of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for ureteral stones treatment. This study was a retrospective review of 2410 SWL procedures with reduced or standard protocols (groups R and S) in 1106 patients for ureteral stones between March 2014 and March 2021. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as the absence of residual fragments on ultrasonography and plain radiography within 30 and 90 days. A multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching analysis evaluated the association between the reduced protocol and treatment success. This study included 311 and 544 patients in the reduced (R) and standard (S) protocol groups, respectively. The patient's characteristics were comparable, excluding the lithotripter machine. No significant difference was observed between groups R and S in treatment success rates within 30 (63.3 vs. 65.8%, p = 0.50) and 90 days (88.7 vs. 91.5%, p = 0.18). The multivariate analysis indicated no significant association between reduced protocol and treatment success within 30 and 90 days (p = 0.44 and p = 0.68, respectively). Propensity score matching showed no significant difference in the treatment success rates within 30 and 90 days. The Extremely slow, half number protocol outcomes are comparable to those of the standard protocol for treating ureteral stones.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy therapy; Extremely slow shock wave lithotripsy; Lithotripsy; Ureteral stone; Urolithiasis

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35969268     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-022-01351-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   2.861


  25 in total

1.  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

2.  Development of a mathematical model to predict extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy outcome.

Authors:  Ioannis Vakalopoulos
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software 'EZR' for medical statistics.

Authors:  Y Kanda
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2012-12-03       Impact factor: 5.483

Review 4.  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

5.  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

6.  Optimal shock wave rate for shock wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Keun Bai Moon; Go San Lim; Jae Seung Hwang; Chae Hong Lim; Jae Won Lee; Jeong Hwan Son; Seok Heun Jang
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2012-11-14

7.  What is the optimal frequency in shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal stones? A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Murat Tuncer; Alper Kafkaslı; Utku Can; Alper Çoşkun; Bilal Eryıldırım; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Extremely-slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for asymptomatic renal stones <20 mm.

Authors:  Katsuhiro Ito; Toshifumi Takahashi; Toru Kanno; Takashi Okada; Yoshihito Higashi; Hitoshi Yamada
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2020-12-03

9.  Evaluating the importance of different computed tomography scan-based factors in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones.

Authors:  Muhammad Waqas; Imad-Ud-Din Saqib; Muhammad Imran Jamil; Mohammad Ayaz Khan; Saeed Akhter
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2017-12-28

Review 10.  Indications and contraindications for shock wave lithotripsy and how to improve outcomes.

Authors:  Luke F Reynolds; Tad Kroczak; Kenneth T Pace
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2018-09-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.