Literature DB >> 7861488

Comparison of first generation (Dornier HM3) and second generation (Medstone STS) lithotriptors: treatment results with 13,864 renal and ureteral calculi.

A S Cass1.   

Abstract

Some reports have shown a decreased effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL*) with newer lithotriptors. We used a first generation unmodified Dornier HM3 lithotriptor to treat 5,698 patients with renal and ureteral calculi and a second generation Medstone STS device to treat 8,166 patients with renal and ureteral calculi. The treatment results were compared using the chi-square test to determine statistical significance. The stone-free rate, retreatment rate and post-ESWL secondary procedure rate were 69.5%, 4.4% and 3.1%, respectively, with the Dornier HM3 device and 72.1%, 4.9% and 2.3%, respectively, with the Medstone lithotriptor for single renal stones, and 81.5%, 5.2% and 5.5%, respectively, with the Dornier HM3 and 83.2%, 5.2% and 5.0%, respectively, with the Medstone device for single ureteral stones. There were no statistically significant different results between a second generation tubless Medstone STS lithotriptor and the gold standard unmodified Dornier HM3 instrument.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7861488     DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199503000-00006

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


  17 in total

Review 1.  Aspects on how extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy should be carried out in order to be maximally effective.

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Christian G Chaussy
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2012-06-27

2.  Evaluation of possible predictive variables for the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones.

Authors:  Yong Il Park; Ji Hyeong Yu; Luck Hee Sung; Chung Hee Noh; Jae Yong Chung
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2010-10-21

Review 3.  Removal of ureteral stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic procedures. What can we learn from the literature in terms of results and treatment efforts?

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2005-05-29

Review 4.  Appropriate kidney stone size for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: When to switch to a percutaneous approach.

Authors:  Ryoji Takazawa; Sachi Kitayama; Toshihiko Tsujii
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2015-02-06

5.  In Vitro Assessment of Three Clinical Lithotripters Employing Different Shock Wave Generators.

Authors:  Stuart Roy Faragher; Robin O Cleveland; Sunil Kumar; Oliver J Wiseman; Benjamin W Turney
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  Enhanced shockwave lithotripsy with active cavitation mitigation.

Authors:  Hedieh Alavi Tamaddoni; William W Roberts; Timothy L Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Simple radiological indicators for staghorn calculi response to ESWL.

Authors:  M S Murshidi
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.370

8.  Treatment outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones and predictive factors of stone-free.

Authors:  Soo Hyun Lim; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Deok Hyun Han
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2010-11-17

9.  Retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus extra corporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for management of renal stones.

Authors:  Jagdish Chander; Nikhil Gupta; Pawanindra Lal; Pawan Lal; Vinod K Ramteke
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.407

10.  Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of smaller than 15 mm.

Authors:  Mustafa Kirac; Ömer Faruk Bozkurt; Lutfi Tunc; Cagri Guneri; Ali Unsal; Hasan Biri
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 3.436

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.