Cargando…

Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: Parallel group comparison during the same time period

INTRODUCTION: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a treatment option for all locations of renal and ureteric stones. We compared the results of SWL for lower pole renal stones with all other non-lower pole renal and ureteric stones during the same time period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All SWL procedures we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Geraghty, Robert, Burr, Jacob, Simmonds, Nick, Somani, Bhaskar K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25657543
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.148601
_version_ 1782354809340297216
author Geraghty, Robert
Burr, Jacob
Simmonds, Nick
Somani, Bhaskar K.
author_facet Geraghty, Robert
Burr, Jacob
Simmonds, Nick
Somani, Bhaskar K.
author_sort Geraghty, Robert
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a treatment option for all locations of renal and ureteric stones. We compared the results of SWL for lower pole renal stones with all other non-lower pole renal and ureteric stones during the same time period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All SWL procedures were carried out as day case procedures by a mobile lithotripter from January 2012 to August 2013. The follow-up imaging was a combination of KUB X-ray or USS. Following SWL treatment, the stone free rate (SFR) was defined as ≤3 mm fragments. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients with a mean age of 62 years underwent 201 procedures. Of the 201 procedures, 93 (46%) were for lower pole stones. The non-lower pole stones included upper pole (n = 36), mid pole (n = 40), renal pelvis (n = 10), PUJ (n = 8), mid ureter (n = 3), upper ureter (n = 5) and a combination of upper, middle and/or lower pole (n = 6). The mean stone size for lower pole stones (7.4 mm; range: 4-16 mm) was slightly smaller than non-lower pole stones (8 mm; range: 4-17 mm). The stone fragmentation was successful in 124 (62%) of patients. However, the SFR was statistically significantly better (P = 0.023) for non-lower pole stones 43 (40%) compared to lower pole stones 23 (25%). There were 9 (4%) minor complications and this was not significantly different in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although SWL achieves a moderately high stone fragmentation rate with a low complication rate, the SFR is variable depending on the location of stone and the definition of SFR, with lower pole stones fairing significantly worse than stones in all other locations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4310116
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43101162015-02-05 Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: Parallel group comparison during the same time period Geraghty, Robert Burr, Jacob Simmonds, Nick Somani, Bhaskar K. Urol Ann Original Article INTRODUCTION: Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a treatment option for all locations of renal and ureteric stones. We compared the results of SWL for lower pole renal stones with all other non-lower pole renal and ureteric stones during the same time period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All SWL procedures were carried out as day case procedures by a mobile lithotripter from January 2012 to August 2013. The follow-up imaging was a combination of KUB X-ray or USS. Following SWL treatment, the stone free rate (SFR) was defined as ≤3 mm fragments. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients with a mean age of 62 years underwent 201 procedures. Of the 201 procedures, 93 (46%) were for lower pole stones. The non-lower pole stones included upper pole (n = 36), mid pole (n = 40), renal pelvis (n = 10), PUJ (n = 8), mid ureter (n = 3), upper ureter (n = 5) and a combination of upper, middle and/or lower pole (n = 6). The mean stone size for lower pole stones (7.4 mm; range: 4-16 mm) was slightly smaller than non-lower pole stones (8 mm; range: 4-17 mm). The stone fragmentation was successful in 124 (62%) of patients. However, the SFR was statistically significantly better (P = 0.023) for non-lower pole stones 43 (40%) compared to lower pole stones 23 (25%). There were 9 (4%) minor complications and this was not significantly different in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although SWL achieves a moderately high stone fragmentation rate with a low complication rate, the SFR is variable depending on the location of stone and the definition of SFR, with lower pole stones fairing significantly worse than stones in all other locations. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4310116/ /pubmed/25657543 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.148601 Text en Copyright: © Urology Annals http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Geraghty, Robert
Burr, Jacob
Simmonds, Nick
Somani, Bhaskar K.
Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: Parallel group comparison during the same time period
title Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: Parallel group comparison during the same time period
title_full Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: Parallel group comparison during the same time period
title_fullStr Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: Parallel group comparison during the same time period
title_full_unstemmed Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: Parallel group comparison during the same time period
title_short Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: Parallel group comparison during the same time period
title_sort shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: parallel group comparison during the same time period
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25657543
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.148601
work_keys_str_mv AT geraghtyrobert shockwavelithotripsyoutcomesforlowerpoleandnonlowerpolestonesfromauniversityteachinghospitalparallelgroupcomparisonduringthesametimeperiod
AT burrjacob shockwavelithotripsyoutcomesforlowerpoleandnonlowerpolestonesfromauniversityteachinghospitalparallelgroupcomparisonduringthesametimeperiod
AT simmondsnick shockwavelithotripsyoutcomesforlowerpoleandnonlowerpolestonesfromauniversityteachinghospitalparallelgroupcomparisonduringthesametimeperiod
AT somanibhaskark shockwavelithotripsyoutcomesforlowerpoleandnonlowerpolestonesfromauniversityteachinghospitalparallelgroupcomparisonduringthesametimeperiod