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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moon, Keun Bai, Lim, Go San, Hwang, Jae Seung, Lim, Chae Hong, Lee, Jae Won, Son, Jeong Hwan, Jang, Seok Heun
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