Literature DB >> 8627823

New stone formation: a comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

L K Carr1, J D'A Honey, M A Jewett, D Ibanez, M Ryan, C Bombardier.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: There is theoretical concern that stone recurrence rates may be higher following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) compared to other techniques because of residual stone debris.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We documented all new stone formations in 298 consecutive patients who initially achieved a stone-free status following ESWL for renal calculi less that 2 cm in largest dimension, and compared the findings to those of 62 patients treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy without ultrasonic fragmentation. Stone-free status was assessed by a centrally reviewed plain abdominal film and renal tomograms at 3 months. A plain abdominal film was repeated at 12 and 24 months to detect recurrence.
RESULTS: New stones formed in 22.2% of patients after ESWL and 4.2% after percutaneous nephrolithotomy at 1 year (p = 0.004), and in 34.8% versus 22.6%, respectively, at 2 years (p =0.190). Furthermore, more new stones recurred in the lower and mid calices compared to baseline location in the ESWL group (chi-square <0.0001), which was not observed in the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data support a trend toward higher stone recurrence rates in ESWL treated patients, which may be due to microscopic sand particles migrating to dependent calices and acting as a nidus for new stone formation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8627823     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)66127-5

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


  16 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

3.  [Economic aspects of evidence-based metaphylaxis].

Authors:  W L Strohmaier
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 4.  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

5.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of lower pole renal calculi.

Authors:  Reem Al-Bareeq; John D Denstedt
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  Role of flexible uretero-renoscopy in management of renal calculi in anomalous kidneys: single-center experience.

Authors:  Abhishek Gajendra Singh; Jaspreet Singh Chhabra; Ravindra Sabnis; Arvind Ganpule; Ankush Jairath; Darshan Shah; Mahesh Desai
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in renal transplants: a safe approach with a high stone-free rate.

Authors:  Mário Oliveira; Frederico Branco; Lasalete Martins; Estevao Lima
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 2.370

8.  An experimental study on residual lithiasis after shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  A Costa-Bauzá; J Perelló; B Isern; F Grases
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2005-01-05

Review 9.  Residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Kaan Ozdedeli; Mete Cek
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 2.021

10.  Management of Clinically Insignificant Residual Fragments following Shock Wave Lithotripsy.

Authors:  Elisa Cicerello; Franco Merlo; Luigi Maccatrozzo
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2012-05-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.