Primary Treatment of Ureteral Stones by New Multiline Lithotripter

Bendhack, Marcelo L.; Grimm, Marc-Oliver; Ackermann, R.; Vögeli, Thomas-Alexander

doi:10.1089/end.1999.13.339

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the light of the recent advances in ureteroscopy, the safety of SWL has remained a concern. The controversial impact of SWL on renal function, haematoma formation and hypertension is less of a concern when using SWL for ureteric stones, but the effect of lithotripsy on the reproductive organs remains a greater concern when treating distal ureteric stones [80–83]. Martinez‐Portillo et al [83] recently evaluated the effect of SWL for distal stones vs proximal stones on semen quality; the quality remained the same after SWL for proximal stones, but there was a transient deterioration in semen quality among men undergoing SWL for distal stones.…”

Section: Technical Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of ureteric stones: issues and controversies

Gettman

Segura

2005

BJU International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

passage in 29-98% of stones of < 5 mm diameter above the iliac vessels, and 71-98% of stones of < 5 mm diameter below the iliac vessels. For stones of 5-10 mm diameter, spontaneous passage occurred in 10-53% of proximal calculi and 25-53% of distal calculi. In a multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with spontaneous ureteric stone passage, Miller and Kane [2] found that smaller, more distal stones on the right side were more likely to spontaneously pass and require fewer surgical interventions. In a recent report by Coll et al. [3] spontaneous ureteric stone passage rates, regardless of size, were 48%, 60%, 75% and 79% for stones in the proximal, middle and distal ureter or at the vesico-ureteric junction, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Technical Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of ureteric stones: issues and controversies

Gettman

Segura

2005

BJU International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No patients required conversion to general or regional anesthesia in our series. Third, a higher total number of SWs per patient was associated with a longer time needed than in our series [8,18] . Increasing the total SW number and treatment time could enhance stone fragmentation, but much more analgesia was needed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 48%

“…Due to the above reasons, we choose a 1-month follow-up program. Second, the power of SWs delivered in other series was about 17 kV for enhanced fragmentation [8,18] . The higher power delivered required a combination of general or epidural anesthesia and intravenous sedation and analgesia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Predictors of Stone Fragmentation Using Slow-Rate Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Chou

Liu

et al. 2007

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To determine efficacy and clinical predictors of stone fragmentation when using slow-rate shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Patients and Methods: In total, 116 patients with radiopaque urinary tract stones were randomized into two groups: 57 patients were treated with SWL at 90 shocks/min, and 59 patients were treated with SWL at 120 shocks/min. The efficacy of SWL was evaluated within 1 month after treatment. Patient characteristics, features of stones, and SWL conditions were reviewed. Success rates relating to individual parameters were assessed by using chi-square and Student t tests. All factors were further entered into multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to age, sex, site and size of the stones, renal function, and total number of shock waves. In univariate analysis, the success rate was significantly related to shock wave frequency (p = 0.023), length and width of the stones (p < 0.001), total number of shock waves (p = 0.047), and age (p = 0.049). In multivariate analysis, however, only shock wave rate and stone length remained statistically significant (p = 0.021 and p = 0.046, respectively). The overall success rate was significantly higher in the group treated with 90 shocks/min (p = 0.02). However, this higher success rate was statistically significant only in patients with a stone length ≧10 mm (50.0 vs. 18.5%, p = 0.019). Conclusion: SWL at 90 shocks/min yielded better outcomes than SWL at 120 shocks/min, particularly in patients with stone lengths ≧10 mm.

show abstract

“…Ova kav stav se mo že po tvr di ti i na la zi ma iz li te ra tu re, pre ma ko ji ma se uče sta lost i te ži na kom pli ka ci ja po sle en do skopskih me to da dez in te gra ci je po ve ća va ju što je ka men lum bal nog ure te ra lo ci ran vi še [13]. S dru ge stra ne, Bend hak (Bend hack) i sa rad ni ci [14] su to kom le če wa in kla vi ra nog ure ter nog ka me na no vim mul ti lajn lito trip to rom (Si e mens) ot kri li i dva slu ča ja pe ri renal nog he ma to ma po sle ESWL in kla vi ra nog ka me na u prok si mal nom de lu lum bal nog ure te ra i na osno vu to ga do ne li za kqu čak da pri pri me ni ESWL po stup ka kod ko jih udar ni ta la si pro la ze kroz pa ren him bu bre ga do ka me na in ter ven ci je tre ba ra di ti s ma wim na ponom ge ne ra to ra. U na šem is tra ži va wu je usta no vqena sta ti stič ki zna čaj na raz li ka u in ci den ci ji kompli ka ci ja na kon li to trip si je li to kla stom u od no su na lo ka li za ci ju ka me na (p<0,05).…”

Section: Diskusijaunclassified

Influence of lithotripsy modalities on complication rate

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Being significantly successful comparing to ESWL, ureteric stone treatment with ureteroscopic lithotripsy should be considered as the first therapeutic option for all, especially impacted stones located in the iliac and pelvic ureteric portion. In spite of absent statistical difference in the success rate, ESWL should be chosen as the first treatment option in all cases of lumbar ureteric stones due to lower complication rate except for stones larger than 100mm2that should be primarily treated endoscopically.

show abstract

Primary Treatment of Ureteral Stones by New Multiline Lithotripter

Cited by 11 publications

References 12 publications

Management of ureteric stones: issues and controversies

Management of ureteric stones: issues and controversies

Clinical Predictors of Stone Fragmentation Using Slow-Rate Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Influence of lithotripsy modalities on complication rate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About