Literature DB >> 7966783

Effect of medical management and residual fragments on recurrent stone formation following shock wave lithotripsy.

J K Fine1, C Y Pak, G M Preminger.   

Abstract

Minimal emphasis has been placed on the clinical sequelae of residual stone fragments following shock wave lithotripsy. Moreover, there are no studies investigating the role of medical therapy on the course of stone disease in patients with residual fragments. In this retrospective, nonrandomized review, we evaluated 80 patients who had undergone shock wave lithotripsy at various institutions in Texas and were referred to our mineral metabolism clinic for metabolic evaluation and medical management of the stone disease. Of the patients 31 were determined to be stone-free following lithotripsy, while 49 had residual stone fragments. All patients were contacted an average of 43.2 months (range 9 to 79) following shock wave lithotripsy and the radiographs were reviewed. Patients were placed into 4 groups after shock wave lithotripsy: stone-free or residual fragments on or off medical therapy. In the stone-free group (19 patients), medical treatment produced a significant decrease in stone formation from a median of 0.67 to 0.0 stones per patient per year (p < 0.001). In 36 patients with residual fragments stone formation before shock wave lithotripsy was higher than in the stone-free group but there was also a significant decrease in the stone formation rate from a median of 2.47 to 0.00 stones per patient per year while on medical therapy (p < 0.001). Of the 12 stone-free patients who did not remain on medical therapy there was a slight decrease in the stone formation rate from a mean of 0.83 to 0.40 stones per patient per year, although this decrease was not significant (p = 0.07). In 13 patients with residual fragments not on medical treatment there was only a minimal decrease in the stone formation rate from a median of 1.33 to 0.77 stones per patient per year (p = 0.06). We also assessed the significance of so-called clinically insignificant residual fragments (smaller than 5 mm.) following shock wave lithotripsy in 26 of the 36 patients with residual fragments. More than half of the 26 patients with clinically insignificant fragments in the group that did not continue on medical therapy demonstrated significant stone growth during followup, suggesting that these fragments were not insignificant. Moreover, only 16% of the patients with fragments smaller than 5 mm. demonstrated an increase in fragment size while on medical therapy, again suggesting that appropriate medical treatment can decrease the risk of recurrent stone formation or growth (p < 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7966783     DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199501000-00010

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


  26 in total

Review 1.  Treatment update on pediatric urolithiasis.

Authors:  T Esen; A Krautschick; P Alken
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  [Alkaline citrates in urology. A status report].

Authors:  L Rinnab; R E Hautmann; M Straub
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Inaccurate reporting of mineral composition by commercial stone analysis laboratories: implications for infection and metabolic stones.

Authors:  Amy E Krambeck; Naseem F Khan; Molly E Jackson; James E Lingeman; James A McAteer; James C Williams
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-08-21       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones.

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Christian G Chaussy
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Medium-term follow-up of clinically insignificant residual fragments after minimal invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prognostic features and risk factors.

Authors:  Xin Li; Long He; Jianzhong Li; Zhongyang Duan; Zijian Gao; Long Liu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-11-15

Review 7.  The acute and long-term adverse effects of shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  James A McAteer; Andrew P Evan
Journal:  Semin Nephrol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.299

8.  What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney.

Authors:  Bimalesh Purkait; Rahul Janak Sinha; Ankur Bansal; Ashok Kumar Sokhal; Kawaljit Singh; Vishwajeet Singh
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-05-06       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Calyceal stones: fate of shock wave therapy with respect to stone localization.

Authors:  A Koşar; K Türkölmez; K Sarica; Y Z Müftüoğlu; O Gögüş; K Aydos
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.370

10.  The effect of terpene combination on ureter calculus expulsion after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Dai Hee Kim; Hyeok Jun Goh; Ho Won Lee; Kyu Shik Kim; Yong Tae Kim; Hong Sang Moon; Seung Wook Lee; Sung Yul Park
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2014-01-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.