Literature DB >> 8510269

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in morbidly obese patients.

R Thomas1, A S Cass.   

Abstract

Management of urolithiasis in morbidly obese patients is usually associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to nonobese patients. In morbidly obese patients, since the kidney and stone are at a considerable distance from the skin (compared to nonobese patients), difficulty may be encountered in positioning the patient so that the stone is situated at the F2 focal point of the lithotriptor. Using various aids, such as the extended shock pathway and abdominal compression, we treated 81 patients weighing more than 300 pounds using the Medstone STS tubless second generation lithotriptor. The stone-free rate at 3 months or longer was 68%, with another 10% having asymptomatic fragments of 4 mm. or less in diameter. Thus, a clinical stone-free rate of 78% was achieved. The retreatment rate was 11% and the post-lithotripsy secondary procedures rate was 3%. Since these results are comparable to those obtained when treating patients less than 300 pounds, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy can be used successfully to treat urolithiasis in morbidly obese patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8510269     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35389-2

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


  16 in total

1.  Obesity and Kidney Stone Procedures.

Authors:  Nikhi P Singh; Carter J Boyd; William Poore; Kyle Wood; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2020

2.  [Effect of the body mass index on outcomes of ureterorenoscopy for renal stones].

Authors:  F Schott; S Knipper; A K Orywal; A J Gross; C Netsch
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 3.  Strategies to optimize shock wave lithotripsy outcome: Patient selection and treatment parameters.

Authors:  Michelle Jo Semins; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2015-05-06

4.  Obesity might not be a disadvantage for SWL treatment in children with renal stone.

Authors:  Oktay Akça; Rahim Horuz; Mustafa Yücel Boz; Alper Kafkasli; Okan Gökhan; Cemal Göktaş; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 2.370

5.  Topical EMLA for pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective, comparative, randomized, double-blind study.

Authors:  D Gallego Vilar; G García Fadrique; C Di Capua Sacoto; J Beltran Persiva; M Perez Mestre; J A De Francia; I Povo Martin; J Miralles Aguado; C Garau Perelló; L Sanchis Verdu; J Gallego Gomez
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2012-05-04

6.  Does the nephrostomy tract length impact the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL)?

Authors:  Gaston M Astroza; Andreas Neisius; Matvey Tsivian; Agnes J Wang; Glenn M Preminger; Michael E Lipkin
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 2.370

7.  Does morbid obesity influence the success and complication rates of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for upper ureteral stones?

Authors:  Onur Dede; Nevzat Can Şener; Okan Baş; Gülay Dede; Muhammet Şahin Bağbancı
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2015-03

8.  Does body mass index effect the success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Authors:  Abdülmuttalip Şimşek; Faruk Özgör; Mehmet Fatih Akbulut; Onur Küçüktopçu; Ahmet Yalçın Berberoğlu; Ömer Sarılar; Murat Binbay; Ahmet Yaser Müslümanoğlu
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2014-06

9.  Effect of the body mass index on outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy.

Authors:  Erhan Sari; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Emrah Yuruk; Berkan Resorlu; Tolga Akman; Murat Binbay; Abdullah Armagan; Ali Unsal; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 3.436

10.  Lessons learned from the CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study.

Authors:  Guido M Kamphuis; Joyce Baard; Matias Westendarp; Jean J M C H de la Rosette
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.