22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation of the Optimal Frequency of and Pretreatment with Shock Waves in Patients with Renal Stones

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Many studies have been carried out to increase the success rate of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and to reduce renal injury. We investigated the success rate after one session as well as urine N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase (NAG) levels for the evaluation of renal injury according to shock wave frequency and pretreatment with low-energy shock waves during SWL.

          Materials and Methods

          The study targeted 48 patients with renal stones who had undergone SWL. Patients were sequentially allocated into four groups according to shock wave frequency (60 or 120 shocks/min) and whether pretreatment had occurred. We documented total SWL operating number, success rate after first SWL, urine NAG, compliance, and the total cost for each patient.

          Results

          There were 32 males and 16 females with an average age of 51.6 years. The average stone size was 7.06 mm, and there was no significant difference in stone size between the groups. The data showed that patients treated with a frequency of 60 shocks/min had a lower mean number of SWL sessions, 1.36 sessions for 60 shocks/min and 2.0 sessions for 120 shocks/min, respectively, which was statistically significant (p<0.05). When comparing NAG/creatinin ratios before and after SWL between those with and without pretreatment, there was no significant difference according to pretreatment (p=0.406).

          Conclusions

          SWL treatment at a frequency of 60 shocks/min yielded better outcomes, such as a lower number of SWL sessions, and had an increased success rate compared with SWL at 120 shocks/min. On the other hand, pretreatment did not impact renal injury. Therefore, SWL treatment at a frequency of 60 shocks/min could improve treatment efficacy more than that for SWL at 120 shocks/min.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results.

          The efficacy of shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous stone removal for the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi was determined. A prospective randomized, multicenter clinical trial was performed comparing shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous stone removal for symptomatic lower pole only renal calculi 30 mm. or less. Of 128 patients enrolled in the study 60 with a mean stone size of 14.43 mm. were randomized to percutaneous stone removal (58 treated, 2 awaiting treatment) and 68 with a mean stone size of 14.03 mm. were randomized to shock wave lithotripsy (64 treated, 4 awaiting treatment). Followup at 3 months was available for 88% of treated patients. The 3-month postoperative stone-free rates overall were 95% for percutaneous removal versus 37% lithotripsy (p <0.001). Shock wave lithotripsy results varied inversely with stone burden while percutaneous stone-free rates were independent of stone burden. Stone clearance from the lower pole following shock wave lithotripsy was particularly problematic for calculi greater than 10 mm. in diameter with only 7 of 33 (21%) patients becoming stone-free. Re-treatment was necessary in 10 (16%) lithotripsy and 5 (9%) percutaneous cases. There were 9 treatment failures in the lithotripsy group and none in the percutaneous group. Ancillary treatment was necessary in 13% of lithotripsy and 2% percutaneous cases. Morbidity was low overall and did not differ significantly between the groups (percutaneous stone removal 22%, shock wave lithotripsy 11%, p =0.087). In the shock wave lithotripsy group there was no difference in lower pole anatomical measurements between kidneys in which complete stone clearance did or did not occur. Stone clearance from the lower pole following shock wave lithotripsy is poor, especially for stones greater than 10 mm. in diameter. Calculi greater than 10 mm. in diameter are better managed initially with percutaneous removal due to its high degree of efficacy and acceptably low morbidity.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 25 years later: complications and their prevention.

            We review the pathophysiology and possible prevention measures of complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). A literature search was performed with the Medline database on ESWL between 1980 and 2004. ESWL application has been intuitively connected to complications. These are related mostly to residual stone fragments, infections, and effects on tissues such as urinary, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, genital, and reproductive systems. Recognition of ESWL limitations, use of alternative therapies, correction of pre-existing renal or systemic disease, treatment of urinary tract infection, use of prophylactic antibiotics, and improvement of ESWL efficacy are the most important measures of prevention. Decrease of shock wave number, rate and energy, use of two shock-wave tubes simultaneously, and delivery of two shock waves at carefully timed close intervals improve ESWL efficacy and safety. ESWL is a safe method to treat stones when proper indications are followed. The need for well-designed prospective randomised trials on aetiology and prevention of its complications arises through the literature review.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Shock wave lithotripsy at 60 or 120 shocks per minute: a randomized, double-blind trial.

              The rate of shock wave administration is a factor in the per shock efficiency of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Experimental evidence suggests that decreasing shock wave frequency from 120 shocks per minute results in improved stone fragmentation. To our knowledge this study is the first to examine the effect of decreased shock wave frequency in patients with renal stones. Patients with previously untreated radiopaque stones in the renal collecting system were randomized to SWL at 60 or 120 shocks per minute. They were followed at 2 weeks and 3 months. The primary outcome was the success rate, defined as stone-free status or asymptomatic fragments less than 5 mm 3 months after treatment. A total of 220 patients were randomized, including 111 to 60 shocks per minute and 109 to 120 shocks per minute. The 2 groups were comparable in regard to age, sex, body mass index, stent status and initial stone area. The success rate was higher for 60 shocks per minute (75% vs 61%, p = 0.027). Patients with larger stones (stone area 100 mm or greater) experienced a greater benefit with treatment at 60 shocks per minute. The success rate was 71% for 60 shocks per minute vs 32% (p = 0.002) and the stone-free rate was 60% vs 28% (p = 0.015). Repeat SWL was required in 32% of patients treated with 120 shocks per minute vs 18% (p = 0.018). Fewer shocks were required with 60 shocks per minute (2,423 vs 2,906, p <0.001) but treatment time was longer (40.6 vs 24.2 minutes, p <0.001). There was a trend toward fewer complications with 60 shocks per minute (p = 0.079). SWL treatment at 60 shocks per minute yields better outcomes than at 120 shocks per minute, particularly for stones 100 mm or greater, without any increase in morbidity and with an acceptable increase in treatment time.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Korean J Urol
                KJU
                Korean Journal of Urology
                The Korean Urological Association
                2005-6737
                2005-6745
                November 2011
                17 November 2011
                : 52
                : 11
                : 776-781
                Affiliations
                Department of Urology, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Young Tae Moon. Department of Urology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, 224-1, Heukseok-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 156-755, Korea. TEL: +82-2-6299-1809, FAX: +82-2-6294-1406, Moon2580@ 123456cau.ac.kr
                Article
                10.4111/kju.2011.52.11.776
                3242992
                22195268
                0199e4c2-9da0-49f9-a0f9-8c0c58487cca
                © The Korean Urological Association, 2011

                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.

                History
                : 30 May 2011
                : 09 August 2011
                Categories
                Original Article
                Urolithiasis

                Urology
                power,acute renal injury,lithotripsy,kidney calculi,epidemiology
                Urology
                power, acute renal injury, lithotripsy, kidney calculi, epidemiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article