Literature DB >> 8345592

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in situ or after push-up for upper ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized trial.

H Danuser1, D K Ackermann, D C Marth, U E Studer, E J Zingg.   

Abstract

A total of 110 patients with upper ureteral calculi was admitted to a prospective trial and randomly allocated to 2 groups: 1 group treated with in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and 1 group treated with ureteral manipulation before ESWL. All patients had solitary upper ureteral calculi without urinary infection. The stones had to be smaller than 1 cm. and located more than 2 cm. lateral to the spine. ESWL was performed with the Dornier HM3 lithotriptor. One patient in the in situ ESWL group had to be treated twice because disintegration of the stone was insufficient after the initial treatment session. All other patients underwent only 1 treatment session. Because 16 patients were lost to followup, 94 were evaluable for the analysis of immediate and long-term results. For disintegration of the stones in situ ESWL needed significantly more shock waves (1,844 +/- 639 versus 1,297 +/- 473, p < 0.001) and a higher voltage (19.5 +/- 1.4 versus 18.7 +/- 0.9 kv., p < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either treatment group. At 3 months 44 of 46 patients (96%) after in situ ESWL and 45 of 48 (94%) after ureteral manipulation before ESWL were free of stones. In view of these results it is suggested that uncomplicated upper ureteral calculi (as defined previously) should be treated first with in situ ESWL, thus, avoiding an invasive procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8345592     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35623-9

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


  6 in total

1.  Push and smash increases success rates in treatment of ureteric calculi by ESWL.

Authors:  A J Gross; A Kugler; F Seseke; R H Ringert
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Comparison of two different running models for the shock wave lithotripsy machine in Taipei City Hospital: self-support versus outsourcing cooperation.

Authors:  Chi-Yi Huang; Shiou-Sheng Chen; Li-Kuei Chen
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2009-07-14

3.  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

4.  The effect of stone size on the results of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of upper ureteric stones.

Authors:  Ahmed S El-Abd; Ahmed M Tawfeek; Shawky A El-Abd; Tarik A Gameel; Hasan H El-Tatawy; Magdy A El-Sabaa; Mohamed G Soliman
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2021-11-26

5.  Shock wave lithotripsy as a primary modality for treating upper ureteric stones: A 10-year experience.

Authors:  Abhijit S Padhye; Pushkaraj B Yadav; Pratikshit M Mahajan; Ashish A Bhave; Yogesh B Kshirsagar; Yogesh B Sovani; Shivadeo S Bapat
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2008-10

6.  A stone pushed back to the collecting system - long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments.

Authors:  Ewa Bres-Niewada; Bartosz Dybowski; Piotr Zapała; Sławomir Poletajew; Nina Miązek-Zapała; Irmina Michałek; Piotr Radziszewski
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2018-06-12
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.