Body mass index, body fat percentage, and the effect of body fat mass on SWL success

Akay, Ali; Gedik, Abdullah; Tutus, Ali; Şahın, Hayrettin; Bircan, Mehmet Kamuran

doi:10.1007/s11255-006-9133-2

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We also evaluated, whether obesity significantly affects SWL treatment as described for older machines [17,22,23,32]. Comparing normal weight, overweight and obese patients with regard to stone free rate, our data showed that therapy success did not depend on BMI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prognostic variables for shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment success: no impact of body mass index (BMI) using a third generation lithotripter

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

stent in situ were evaluated for their prognostic relevance on therapy success. RESULTS• The mean (range) BMI of all patients was 27.8 (19.0-58.6) kg/m 2 .• Patients were categorized into two groups: A) patients that were stone free after one treatment; B) patients with residual stones. The mean ( SD ) BMI was 27.4 (4.6) kg/m 2 and 28.4 (6.1) kg/m 2 for A and B, respectively.• Univariate and multivariate analysis for freedom of stones showed that only stone size ( P < 0.01) and presence of a ureteric stent ( P = 0.01) were independent prognostic variables.• BMI had no significant influence on therapy outcome ( P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS• Using a third generation lithotripter, BMI was not an independent predictor of stonefree rate after SWL therapy of kidney stones.• This effect might be attributed to a greater penetration depth of the shockwave energy. Stone size and a ureteric stent in situ were the only variables with prognostic significance. KEYWORDSshockwave lithotripsy (SWL), urolithiasis, body mass index (BMI), prognostic factor What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Therapy success in SWL treatment differs between individuals. According to recent studies done with first and second generation lithotripters, different prognostic variables like stone size, stone location, stone composition, age of patient and BMI have been shown to have prognostic relevance for outcome after SWL treatment.This study has been performed with a newer, third generation lithotripter. According to this study, BMI has no impact on SWL treatment success. Therefore, SWL treatment with newer generation lithotripters should be considered for the treatment of kidney stones in overweight and obese patients.Study Type -Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 OBJECTIVE• To investigate the effect of different variables including body mass index (BMI) on therapy outcome in patients with upper urinary tract stones treated with a third generation lithotripter, as BMI has been reported to be an independent predictor for stone-free status after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) performed with first or second generation lithotripters. PATIENTS AND METHODS• In all, 172 patients with kidney stones with a mean (range) size of 9.2 (3.0-32.0) mm were included in the study.• In all, 91 patients (52.9%) were treated with a ureteric stent in situ .• For SWL therapy a third generation, electromagnetic lithotripter (Siemens Lithoskop TM

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Therefore, the present data contrasts that of other studies performed to date.Akay et al. [23] and El‐Nahas et al. [17]reported a significant influence of BMI on stone‐free rate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic variables for shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment success: no impact of body mass index (BMI) using a third generation lithotripter

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have shown that PBF more accurately reflects body composition than BMI, although both BMI and PBF have been used for the evaluation of human health risks such as cardiovascular risk in clinical practice (12,13). A higher PBF and/or BMI often indicates a higher level of cardiovascular risk (14). However, the relationship between PBF and BMI is not linear (15,16).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percent body fat is a better predictor of cardiovascular risk factors than body mass index

Zeng

Dong

Sun

et al. 2012

Braz J Med Biol Res

172

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the predictive values of percent body fat (PBF) and body mass index (BMI) for cardiovascular risk factors, especially when PBF and BMI are conflicting. BMI was calculated by the standard formula and PBF was determined by bioelectrical impedance analysis. A total of 3859 ambulatory adult Han Chinese subjects (2173 males and 1686 females, age range: 18-85 years) without a history of cardiovascular diseases were recruited from February to September 2009. Based on BMI and PBF, they were classified into group 1 (normal BMI and PBF, N = 1961), group 2 (normal BMI, but abnormal PBF, N = 381), group 3 (abnormal BMI, but normal PBF, N = 681), and group 4 (abnormal BMI and PBF, N = 836). When age, gender, lifestyle, and family history of obesity were adjusted, PBF, but not BMI, was correlated with blood glucose and lipid levels. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for cardiovascular risk factors in groups 2 and 4 were 1.88 (1.45-2.45) and 2.06 (1.26-3.35) times those in group 1, respectively, but remained unchanged in group 3 (OR = 1.32, 95%CI = 0.92-1.89). Logistic regression models also demonstrated that PBF, rather than BMI, was independently associated with cardiovascular risk factors. In conclusion, PBF, and not BMI, is independently associated with cardiovascular risk factors, indicating that PBF is a better predictor.

show abstract

“…Urinary total protein-to-creatinine ratio was also determined with the subjects in a nonrecumbent position for C3 h. Finally height, body weight, and sitting blood pressure (reference: systolic and diastolic blood pressure \90th centile for gender, age, and height in subjects less than 18 years of age and \140/90 mmHg in the remaining subjects) were recorded and a complete physical examination performed. Body mass index was calculated as the body weight in kilograms divided by squared height in meters [8,9] and the glomerular filtration rate (reference value: C90 ml/[min. 1.73 m 2 ]) estimated from height and circulating creatinine using the ''height to creatinine equations'' [10].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Body mass index modulates postural proteinuria

Milani

Bianchetti

Bozzani³

et al. 2009

Int Urol Nephrol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dear Sir,In contrast to constant proteinuria, postural proteinuria has been generally regarded as a benign condition [1][2][3][4]. However, anecdotal observations suggest that postural proteinuria might sometimes reflect incipient kidney disease [5,6]. To further address this controversy we recently reassessed 15 subjects with fixed and reproducible postural proteinuria two or more years after the initial diagnosis.After breakfast and after starting an appropriate water load, the subjects came to the clinic. They had been advised to bring along a portion of the first morning urine (''recumbent'') for determination of the total protein-to-creatinine ratio (reference value: B30 mg/mmol) [7]. The second morning urine sample was collected for urinary sediment analysis and blood was taken for determination of creatinine. Urinary total protein-to-creatinine ratio was also determined with the subjects in a nonrecumbent position for C3 h. Finally height, body weight, and sitting blood pressure (reference: systolic and diastolic blood pressure \90th centile for gender, age, and height in subjects less than 18 years of age and \140/90 mmHg in the remaining subjects) were recorded and a complete physical examination performed. Body mass index was calculated as the body weight in kilograms divided by squared height in meters [8,9] and the glomerular filtration rate (reference value: C90 ml/[min. 1.73 m 2 ]) estimated from height and circulating creatinine using the ''height to creatinine equations'' [10]. Since body mass index (in kg/m 2 ) varies with age, this parameter was also plotted on the body mass index for age and gender charts and expressed as centile adjusted for age and gender [8].Descriptive statistics are presented as numbers for qualitative data, and as median and interquartile range (which extends from the value at the 25th to that at the 75th centile and includes half of the data points) for quantitative data. v 2 -test (qualitative data) and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for independent samples (quantitative data) were used for analysis. Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level.In the recently reevaluated subjects, whose age ranged from 10 to 24 years, the diagnosis of postural proteinuria had been made 2.3-15 years earlier. Physical examination, blood pressure, glomerular filtration rate, urinalysis, and recumbent urinary total proteinto-creatinine ratio were normal in the subjects. Nonrecumbent urinary total protein-to-creatinine ratio

show abstract

Body mass index, body fat percentage, and the effect of body fat mass on SWL success

Abstract: BFP and BFM parameters are also important factors along with the BMI in providing a successful SWL treatment. All the parameters should be considered regarding the success of the treatment and the patients should be informed.

Cited by 17 publications

References 8 publications

Prognostic variables for shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment success: no impact of body mass index (BMI) using a third generation lithotripter

Prognostic variables for shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment success: no impact of body mass index (BMI) using a third generation lithotripter

Percent body fat is a better predictor of cardiovascular risk factors than body mass index

Body mass index modulates postural proteinuria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About