Methodology, Results and Complications in 2000 Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Procedures

Sofras, Frank; Karayannis, A.; Kostakopoulos, A.; Delakas, Dimitrios; Kastriotis, J.; Dimopoulos, C.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.1988.tb09153.x

Cited by 32 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of our patients, 76.6% were stonefree at 3 months, and in another 16.6% there was marked improvement in symptoms although residual lithiasis was observed. These results appear very similar to a previous study of the efficacy of ESWL [9], Regarding the frequency of renal colic and UTIs, marked improvement was observed in our patients. It is reasonable to assume that the reduction of stone mass obtained by ESWL therapy and the reduced number of obstructed upper urinary tracts offers a direct benefit to the patient by reducing the number of renal colic and UTI attacks.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Management of Lithiasis in Medullary Sponge Kidneys

Deliveliotis

Sofras²,

Karagiotis³

et al. 1996

Urol Int

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty-four patients with medullary sponge kidneys (MSKs), diagnosed on a recent IVU, and renal lithiasis were treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). A detailed history regarding frequency of renal colic and urinary tract infection (UTI) was recorded and compared to the post-ESWL frequency of the symptoms. Our results show that the stone clearance rate is similar to that of non-MSK patients but there is a great reduction in the frequency of renal colic and UTI.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Management of Lithiasis in Medullary Sponge Kidneys

Deliveliotis

Sofras²,

Karagiotis³

et al. 1996

Urol Int

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results are reported using the guidelines of the first UK consensus conference on lithotripter terminology, held between 75 and 90% [6][7][8][9]. However, there have been few comparisons between PCN and ESWL for treating in 1989 [14].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A case‐control study of percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Saxby

Sorahan

Slaney

et al. 1997

British Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the relative efficacy of percutaneous (P=0.001). ESWL results were also affected by re-treatment rates, which were influenced by distance nephrolithotomy (PCN) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in clearing stones and to examine of the local hospital from the lithotripter. The results with PCN improved with experience. The results of factors which affected the results from each treatment. Patients and methods The study comprised 390 patients ESWL were satisfactory and the treatment cheaper, with a lower morbidity and hospital stay than after treated with PCN who were compared to 618 patients treated with ESWL. Unconditional logistic regression PCN for stones <2 cm in diameter, making it the treatment of choice. However for stones >2 cm, the analysis was used to compare the odds of success and failure in the PCN group with those in the ESWL results of ESWL were not as good and costs of treatment, morbidity and hospital stay were much closer group, whilst controlling for any potential effects of age, sex, laterality, presence of other stones, previous to those of PCN for similar sized stones. Conclusions PCN is more effective than ESWL in clearing stone history, pre-operative treatment and centre. Results PCN was more successful in obtaining satisfacstones. However, ESWL is an effective treatment and is usually the treatment of choice for most stones. tory results than ESWL, with an odds ratio of 2.67 (P<0.001, 95% confidence intervals 1.84-3.87). The Nevertheless, PCN remains an important and extremely effective method of treatment. The choice odds ratio in favour of PCN was increased after controlling for differences by centre (odds ratio 5.18, of treatment for stones will be influenced by the distance of a centre from a static lithotripter, and the 95% confidence intervals 2.89-9.16). No other factors significantly influenced the odds ratio. ESWL was less potential availability of a mobile lithotripter. Keywords Lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, successful in treating stones >2 cm in diameter compared to treating stones <2 cm in diameter case-match control study ESWL as the treatment of choice in view of the lower

show abstract

“…30 Microscopic hematuria occurs in virtually all cases, however gross hematuria appears only in about one third of patient. 31 A prospective study of 3,241 patients with calculi larger than 4 mm undergoing ESWL (7,245 sessions) and monitored for a period of three months reported 4,075 complications, including renal colic (40%), gross hematuria (32%), urinary obstruction (30.9%) and perirenal hematoma or subclinical subcapsular hematoma (4.6%) as the most common. Furthermore, symptomatic bacteriuria was diagnosed in 9.7% of cases.…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of renal and ureteral stones

Torricelli

Danilovic

Vicentini

et al. 2015

Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflict of interest: noneThe use of certain technical principles and the selection of favorable cases can optimize the results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). The aim of this study is to review how ESWL works, its indications and contraindications, predictive factors for success, and its complications. A search was conducted on the Pubmed ® database between January 1984 and October 2013 using "shock wave lithotripsy" and "stone" as key-words. Only articles with a high level of evidence, in English, and conducted in humans, such as clinical trials or review/ meta-analysis, were included. To optimize the search for the ESWL results, several technical factors including type of lithotripsy device, energy and frequency of pulses, coupling of the patient to the lithotriptor, location of the calculus, and type of anesthesia should be taken into consideration. Other factors related to the patient, stone size and density, skin to stone distance, anatomy of the excretory path, and kidney anomalies are also important. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not necessary, and routine double J stent placement before the procedure is not routinely recommended. Alpha-blockers, particularly tamsulosin, are useful for stones >10mm. Minor complications may occur following ESWL, which generally respond well to clinical interventions. The relationship between ESWL and hypertension/diabetes is not well established.

show abstract

Methodology, Results and Complications in 2000 Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Procedures

Cited by 32 publications

References 8 publications

Management of Lithiasis in Medullary Sponge Kidneys

Management of Lithiasis in Medullary Sponge Kidneys

A case‐control study of percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of renal and ureteral stones

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About