Cargando…
Optimal Shock Wave Rate for Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urolithiasis Treatment: A Prospective Randomized Study
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the effects of a fast shock wave rate (120 shocks per minute) and a slow shock wave rate (60 shocks per minute) on the shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) success rate, patient's pain tolerance, and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 165 patients with radiopa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Urological Association
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23185672 http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/kju.2012.53.11.790 |
_version_ | 1782250382735441920 |
---|---|
author | Moon, Keun Bai Lim, Go San Hwang, Jae Seung Lim, Chae Hong Lee, Jae Won Son, Jeong Hwan Jang, Seok Heun |
author_facet | Moon, Keun Bai Lim, Go San Hwang, Jae Seung Lim, Chae Hong Lee, Jae Won Son, Jeong Hwan Jang, Seok Heun |
author_sort | Moon, Keun Bai |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the effects of a fast shock wave rate (120 shocks per minute) and a slow shock wave rate (60 shocks per minute) on the shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) success rate, patient's pain tolerance, and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 165 patients with radiopaque renal pelvis or upper ureter stones were included in the study. Patients were classified by use of a random numbers table. Group I (81 patients) received 60 shock waves per minute and group II (84 patients) received 120 shock waves per minute. For each session, the success rate, pain measurement, and complication rate were recorded. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in the patients according to age, sex, body mass index, stone size, side, location, total energy level, or number of shocks. The success rate of the first session was greater in group I than in group II (p=0.002). The visual analogue pain scale was lower in group I than in group II (p=0.001). The total number of sessions to success and the complication rate were significantly lower in group I than in group II (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The success rate of SWL is dependent on the interval between the shock waves. If the time between the shock waves is short, the rate of lithotripsy success decreases, and the pain measurement score and complications increase. We conclude slow SWL is the optimal shock wave rate. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3502739 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | The Korean Urological Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35027392012-11-26 Optimal Shock Wave Rate for Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urolithiasis Treatment: A Prospective Randomized Study Moon, Keun Bai Lim, Go San Hwang, Jae Seung Lim, Chae Hong Lee, Jae Won Son, Jeong Hwan Jang, Seok Heun Korean J Urol Original Article PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the effects of a fast shock wave rate (120 shocks per minute) and a slow shock wave rate (60 shocks per minute) on the shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) success rate, patient's pain tolerance, and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 165 patients with radiopaque renal pelvis or upper ureter stones were included in the study. Patients were classified by use of a random numbers table. Group I (81 patients) received 60 shock waves per minute and group II (84 patients) received 120 shock waves per minute. For each session, the success rate, pain measurement, and complication rate were recorded. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in the patients according to age, sex, body mass index, stone size, side, location, total energy level, or number of shocks. The success rate of the first session was greater in group I than in group II (p=0.002). The visual analogue pain scale was lower in group I than in group II (p=0.001). The total number of sessions to success and the complication rate were significantly lower in group I than in group II (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The success rate of SWL is dependent on the interval between the shock waves. If the time between the shock waves is short, the rate of lithotripsy success decreases, and the pain measurement score and complications increase. We conclude slow SWL is the optimal shock wave rate. The Korean Urological Association 2012-11 2012-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC3502739/ /pubmed/23185672 http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/kju.2012.53.11.790 Text en © The Korean Urological Association, 2012 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Moon, Keun Bai Lim, Go San Hwang, Jae Seung Lim, Chae Hong Lee, Jae Won Son, Jeong Hwan Jang, Seok Heun Optimal Shock Wave Rate for Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urolithiasis Treatment: A Prospective Randomized Study |
title | Optimal Shock Wave Rate for Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urolithiasis Treatment: A Prospective Randomized Study |
title_full | Optimal Shock Wave Rate for Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urolithiasis Treatment: A Prospective Randomized Study |
title_fullStr | Optimal Shock Wave Rate for Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urolithiasis Treatment: A Prospective Randomized Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Optimal Shock Wave Rate for Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urolithiasis Treatment: A Prospective Randomized Study |
title_short | Optimal Shock Wave Rate for Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urolithiasis Treatment: A Prospective Randomized Study |
title_sort | optimal shock wave rate for shock wave lithotripsy in urolithiasis treatment: a prospective randomized study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23185672 http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/kju.2012.53.11.790 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT moonkeunbai optimalshockwaverateforshockwavelithotripsyinurolithiasistreatmentaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT limgosan optimalshockwaverateforshockwavelithotripsyinurolithiasistreatmentaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT hwangjaeseung optimalshockwaverateforshockwavelithotripsyinurolithiasistreatmentaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT limchaehong optimalshockwaverateforshockwavelithotripsyinurolithiasistreatmentaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT leejaewon optimalshockwaverateforshockwavelithotripsyinurolithiasistreatmentaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT sonjeonghwan optimalshockwaverateforshockwavelithotripsyinurolithiasistreatmentaprospectiverandomizedstudy AT jangseokheun optimalshockwaverateforshockwavelithotripsyinurolithiasistreatmentaprospectiverandomizedstudy |