Cargando…

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy without radiation: Ultrasound localization is as effective as fluoroscopy

CONTEXT: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first-line treatment for renal calculi in most cases. Recent technology has allowed lithotriptor machines to localize stones using fluoroscopy or ultrasound (US). AIM: The aim of this study is to compare stone free rates (SFR) using two tech...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Smith, Hazel Elizabeth, Bryant, David Alistair, KooNg, Jenny, Chapman, Richard Alexander, Lewis, Gareth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5100152/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28057991
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.192104
_version_ 1782466081245364224
author Smith, Hazel Elizabeth
Bryant, David Alistair
KooNg, Jenny
Chapman, Richard Alexander
Lewis, Gareth
author_facet Smith, Hazel Elizabeth
Bryant, David Alistair
KooNg, Jenny
Chapman, Richard Alexander
Lewis, Gareth
author_sort Smith, Hazel Elizabeth
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first-line treatment for renal calculi in most cases. Recent technology has allowed lithotriptor machines to localize stones using fluoroscopy or ultrasound (US). AIM: The aim of this study is to compare stone free rates (SFR) using two techniques. METHODS: This is a single center retrospective cohort study. We have studied 95 patients with renal calculi undergoing first SWL treatment with localization using US (48 pts) and fluoroscopy (47 pts). SFR was defined as fragments ≤2 m at 4 weeks post procedure on x-ray or US. Patient records were reviewed. RESULTS: Stone size and location, age and body mass index were comparable between groups. Stones ≤7 mm had better SFR with US 86% (18/21) compared to fluoroscopy 59% (10/17) P= 0.08. Overall the US group had similar SFR to the fluoroscopy group for stones of all sizes and locations with 60% (29/48) compared to 45% (21/47)P= 0.18. Radiation exposure was the biggest difference between techniques with a mean radiation dose (mGy/cm(2)) in the US group of 103 (0–233) and 2113 (241–7821) in the fluoroscopy group. Radiation use in the US group was due to the use of a single shot pre- and post-procedure, this could be reduced to zero. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show equivalent outcomes using US compared to the traditional fluoroscopy localization technique. We would encourage departments to develop the use of US localization to reduce radiation exposure to patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5100152
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51001522017-01-05 Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy without radiation: Ultrasound localization is as effective as fluoroscopy Smith, Hazel Elizabeth Bryant, David Alistair KooNg, Jenny Chapman, Richard Alexander Lewis, Gareth Urol Ann Original Article CONTEXT: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first-line treatment for renal calculi in most cases. Recent technology has allowed lithotriptor machines to localize stones using fluoroscopy or ultrasound (US). AIM: The aim of this study is to compare stone free rates (SFR) using two techniques. METHODS: This is a single center retrospective cohort study. We have studied 95 patients with renal calculi undergoing first SWL treatment with localization using US (48 pts) and fluoroscopy (47 pts). SFR was defined as fragments ≤2 m at 4 weeks post procedure on x-ray or US. Patient records were reviewed. RESULTS: Stone size and location, age and body mass index were comparable between groups. Stones ≤7 mm had better SFR with US 86% (18/21) compared to fluoroscopy 59% (10/17) P= 0.08. Overall the US group had similar SFR to the fluoroscopy group for stones of all sizes and locations with 60% (29/48) compared to 45% (21/47)P= 0.18. Radiation exposure was the biggest difference between techniques with a mean radiation dose (mGy/cm(2)) in the US group of 103 (0–233) and 2113 (241–7821) in the fluoroscopy group. Radiation use in the US group was due to the use of a single shot pre- and post-procedure, this could be reduced to zero. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show equivalent outcomes using US compared to the traditional fluoroscopy localization technique. We would encourage departments to develop the use of US localization to reduce radiation exposure to patients. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5100152/ /pubmed/28057991 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.192104 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-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Smith, Hazel Elizabeth
Bryant, David Alistair
KooNg, Jenny
Chapman, Richard Alexander
Lewis, Gareth
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy without radiation: Ultrasound localization is as effective as fluoroscopy
title Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy without radiation: Ultrasound localization is as effective as fluoroscopy
title_full Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy without radiation: Ultrasound localization is as effective as fluoroscopy
title_fullStr Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy without radiation: Ultrasound localization is as effective as fluoroscopy
title_full_unstemmed Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy without radiation: Ultrasound localization is as effective as fluoroscopy
title_short Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy without radiation: Ultrasound localization is as effective as fluoroscopy
title_sort extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy without radiation: ultrasound localization is as effective as fluoroscopy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5100152/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28057991
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.192104
work_keys_str_mv AT smithhazelelizabeth extracorporealshockwavelithotripsywithoutradiationultrasoundlocalizationisaseffectiveasfluoroscopy
AT bryantdavidalistair extracorporealshockwavelithotripsywithoutradiationultrasoundlocalizationisaseffectiveasfluoroscopy
AT koongjenny extracorporealshockwavelithotripsywithoutradiationultrasoundlocalizationisaseffectiveasfluoroscopy
AT chapmanrichardalexander extracorporealshockwavelithotripsywithoutradiationultrasoundlocalizationisaseffectiveasfluoroscopy
AT lewisgareth extracorporealshockwavelithotripsywithoutradiationultrasoundlocalizationisaseffectiveasfluoroscopy