Cargando…
Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones
BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and clinical outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for patients with renal stones using pure fluoroscopy (FS) or ultrasound-assisted (USa) localization with two lithotripters. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 425 patients with rena...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7653739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33172476 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00756-6 |
_version_ | 1783607934066884608 |
---|---|
author | Chang, Tsung-Hsin Lin, Wun-Rong Tsai, Wei-Kung Chiang, Pai-Kai Chen, Marcelo Tseng, Jen-Shu Chiu, Allen W. |
author_facet | Chang, Tsung-Hsin Lin, Wun-Rong Tsai, Wei-Kung Chiang, Pai-Kai Chen, Marcelo Tseng, Jen-Shu Chiu, Allen W. |
author_sort | Chang, Tsung-Hsin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and clinical outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for patients with renal stones using pure fluoroscopy (FS) or ultrasound-assisted (USa) localization with two lithotripters. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 425 patients with renal calculi who underwent SWL with either a LiteMed LM-9200 ELMA lithotripter (209 cases), which combined ultrasound and fluoroscopic stone targeting or a Medispec EM-1000 lithotripter machine (216 cases), which used fluoroscopy for stone localization and tracking. The patient demographic data, stone-free rates, stone disintegration rates, retreatment rates and complication rates were analyzed. RESULTS: The USa group had a significantly higher overall stone-free rate (43.6 vs. 28.2%, p < 0.001) and stone disintegration rate (85.6 vs. 64.3%, p < 0.001), as well as a significantly lower retreatment rate (14.8 vs. 35.6%, p < 0.001) and complication rate (1.9 vs. 5.5%, p = 0.031) compared with the FS group. This superiority remained significant in the stone size < 1 cm stratified group. In the stone size > 1 cm group, the stone-free rate (32.4 vs. 17.8%, p = 0.028), disintegration rate (89.2 vs. 54.8%, p = 0.031) and retreatment rate (21.6 vs. 53.4%, p < 0.001) were still significantly better in the USa group, however there was no significant difference in the complication rate. The most common complication was post-SWL-related flank pain. CONCLUSION: SWL is a safe and non-invasive way of treating renal stones. This study compared two electromagnetic shock wave machines with different stone tracking systems. LiteMed LM-9200 ELMA lithotripter, which combined ultrasound and fluoroscopic stone targeting outperformed Medispec EM-1000 lithotripter, which used fluoroscopy for stone localization and tracking, with better stone-free rates and disintegration rates, as well as lower retreatment rates and complications with possible reduced radiation exposure. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7653739 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76537392020-11-16 Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones Chang, Tsung-Hsin Lin, Wun-Rong Tsai, Wei-Kung Chiang, Pai-Kai Chen, Marcelo Tseng, Jen-Shu Chiu, Allen W. BMC Urol Research Article BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and clinical outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for patients with renal stones using pure fluoroscopy (FS) or ultrasound-assisted (USa) localization with two lithotripters. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 425 patients with renal calculi who underwent SWL with either a LiteMed LM-9200 ELMA lithotripter (209 cases), which combined ultrasound and fluoroscopic stone targeting or a Medispec EM-1000 lithotripter machine (216 cases), which used fluoroscopy for stone localization and tracking. The patient demographic data, stone-free rates, stone disintegration rates, retreatment rates and complication rates were analyzed. RESULTS: The USa group had a significantly higher overall stone-free rate (43.6 vs. 28.2%, p < 0.001) and stone disintegration rate (85.6 vs. 64.3%, p < 0.001), as well as a significantly lower retreatment rate (14.8 vs. 35.6%, p < 0.001) and complication rate (1.9 vs. 5.5%, p = 0.031) compared with the FS group. This superiority remained significant in the stone size < 1 cm stratified group. In the stone size > 1 cm group, the stone-free rate (32.4 vs. 17.8%, p = 0.028), disintegration rate (89.2 vs. 54.8%, p = 0.031) and retreatment rate (21.6 vs. 53.4%, p < 0.001) were still significantly better in the USa group, however there was no significant difference in the complication rate. The most common complication was post-SWL-related flank pain. CONCLUSION: SWL is a safe and non-invasive way of treating renal stones. This study compared two electromagnetic shock wave machines with different stone tracking systems. LiteMed LM-9200 ELMA lithotripter, which combined ultrasound and fluoroscopic stone targeting outperformed Medispec EM-1000 lithotripter, which used fluoroscopy for stone localization and tracking, with better stone-free rates and disintegration rates, as well as lower retreatment rates and complications with possible reduced radiation exposure. BioMed Central 2020-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7653739/ /pubmed/33172476 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00756-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Chang, Tsung-Hsin Lin, Wun-Rong Tsai, Wei-Kung Chiang, Pai-Kai Chen, Marcelo Tseng, Jen-Shu Chiu, Allen W. Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones |
title | Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones |
title_full | Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones |
title_fullStr | Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones |
title_short | Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones |
title_sort | comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7653739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33172476 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00756-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT changtsunghsin comparisonofultrasoundassistedandpurefluoroscopyguidedextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforrenalstones AT linwunrong comparisonofultrasoundassistedandpurefluoroscopyguidedextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforrenalstones AT tsaiweikung comparisonofultrasoundassistedandpurefluoroscopyguidedextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforrenalstones AT chiangpaikai comparisonofultrasoundassistedandpurefluoroscopyguidedextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforrenalstones AT chenmarcelo comparisonofultrasoundassistedandpurefluoroscopyguidedextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforrenalstones AT tsengjenshu comparisonofultrasoundassistedandpurefluoroscopyguidedextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforrenalstones AT chiuallenw comparisonofultrasoundassistedandpurefluoroscopyguidedextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyforrenalstones |