Literature DB >> 7933164

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: multicenter study of kidney and upper ureter versus middle and lower ureter treatments.

J T Ehreth1, G W Drach, M L Arnett, R B Barnett, D Govan, J Lingeman, S A Loening, D M Newman, J M Tudor, S Saada.   

Abstract

Six institutions throughout the United States participated in this study. Each center used a multifunctional flat table lithotriptor (Dornier MFL-5000) to treat 658 patients with kidney and upper ureteral stones (766 treatments) and 323 with middle and lower ureteral stones (391 treatments), for a total of 925 patients (1,157 treatments). Some patients received more than 1 treatment (that is the kidney and ureter), for a total of 981 patient events. Complete followup was available for 81% of the patients. The overall stone-free rate at followup of approximately 90 days was greater in the middle and lower ureter group (83%) than in the kidney and upper ureter group (67%). The proportion of single stones treated was greater for the former group (89.5%) than for the latter group (72%). A larger proportion (18%) of the middle and lower ureter group required 2 or more treatments to the targeted stone than did the kidney and upper ureter group (13%). Anesthesia was required or selected in only 26.7% of the kidney and upper ureteral stone patients and in 18.5% of those with middle and lower ureteral calculi, usually at the request of the patient or physician, or for performance of an adjunctive procedure. The relative safety of this treatment is demonstrated by a low overall rate of complications reported during and after treatment, including a ureteral obstruction rate of 2.1% for kidney and upper ureteral stones and 2.5% for middle and lower ureteral stones. There were no demonstrated trends in a review of laboratory data to suggest significant treatment side effects. The diastolic blood pressure increased to more than 95 mm. Hg after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL*) in 6% of the kidney and upper ureteral and 4% of the middle and lower ureteral stone patients, while pretreatment hypertension resolved after ESWL in 11% of both groups. The results of this clinical evaluation indicate somewhat greater effectiveness for the specified indications of ESWL of stones in the ureter below the upper rim of the bony pelvis, as opposed to those in the kidney and upper ureter, with a low incidence of complications and side effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7933164     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)32425-4

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


  21 in total

Review 1.  Estimating the effectiveness of various methods of evacuation of kidney stones, on the basis of data obtained on percentage of "stone free" and recurrent stone formation.

Authors:  V M Bilobrov; A Roy; S V Bilobrov
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Predictive value of low tube voltage and dual-energy CT for successful shock wave lithotripsy: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Remo Largo; Paul Stolzmann; Christian D Fankhauser; Cédric Poyet; Pirmin Wolfsgruber; Tullio Sulser; Hatem Alkadhi; Sebastian Winklhofer
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  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

4.  Treatment of ureteral stones using Holmium:YAG laser.

Authors:  Y Ilker; A Ozgür; C Yazici
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.370

5.  Complications and outcomes following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective study of 3,241 patients.

Authors:  Sepehr Salem; Abdolrasoul Mehrsai; Hamed Zartab; Nematollah Shahdadi; Gholamreza Pourmand
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2009-12-17

6.  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

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 of large proximal ureteral stones: extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscope with lithoclast.

Authors:  Ehab R Tawfick
Journal:  Int Arch Med       Date:  2010-01-28

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.  The concentration of Zn, Mg and Mn in calcium oxalate monohydrate stones appears to interfere with their fragility in ESWL therapy.

Authors:  Mehmet Turgut; Ibrahim Unal; Asiye Berber; Temir Ali Demir; Fezan Mutlu; Yüksel Aydar
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2008-01-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.