Shock‐Wave Treatment of Renal Calculi

Tiselius, Hans‐Göran

doi:10.1002/9781444345148.ch51

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 113 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ESWL is generally not considered to be the first-line treatment for renal stones ≥20 mm because of high retreatment rates and the need for auxiliary procedures [6,7]. However, due to the large population and the high prevalence of urolithiasis, there are great numbers of patients with renal stones ≥20 mm in China.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lower calyces were the most common location for residual fragments, even for stones that were initially located and treated in other parts of the kidney [18,19,20]; this phenomenon is thought to be an effect of gravity [7]. In this study, the stone-free rate was also significantly lower for patients with lower calyceal stones compared to patients with stones in other locations, although the patients with lower calyceal stones were instructed to perform inversion movements frequently after ESWL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, ESWL is generally considered to be the first-line treatment for renal stones <20 mm because it is noninvasive, does not require anesthesia and is relatively inexpensive [3]. However, treatment for renal stones ≥20 mm remains controversial, and the success rate of ESWL monotherapy in these patients varies widely [4,5,6,7]. It has become necessary to clarify the types of renal stones ≥20 mm that are suitable for ESWL to optimize the treatment results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Treatment of Renal Stones ≥20 mm with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Wang²,

Lu³

et al. 2015

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To identify subgroups of patients with renal stones ≥20 mm that are more suitable for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) monotherapy. Methods: A total of 376 patients with renal stones ≥20 mm underwent monotherapy with ESWL. The treatment outcome was evaluated after 3 months of follow-up. A stone-free status or fragmentation of stones to 4 mm or smaller was considered efficacious. Results: At 3 months after treatment, the overall stone-free rate was 64.4%, and the efficacy rate was 70.7%. The efficacy rate was 89.4% for patients with a residual stone surface area ≤50% of baseline after the first ESWL, while the efficacy rate was 32.4% for other patients. The efficacy was 92.2% for stones ≤400 mm² and those with lower radiodensity, as determined by a plain (KUB) film. Conclusions: For renal stones with a surface area ≤400 mm² and a radiodensity equal to or less than that of the 12th rib as determined by a KUB film, ESWL may be considered the first line of treatment, even for stones with a diameter ≥20 mm. For large stones requiring repeat treatments, the surface area of the residual stones after the first ESWL is a predictor of the final treatment result.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%