Treatment of subcapsular haematoma, a complication of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), by percutaneous drainage

Jang, Yong Bum; Kang, Kyung Pyo; Lee, Sik; Kim, Won; Kim, Myung Ki; Kim, Young Gon; Park, Sung Kwang

doi:10.1093/ndt/gfk002

Cited by 19 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…renal injury, is 2.5% [7]. There are more serious complications, such as subcapsular hematoma [8]. In addition to those mentioned, ruptured spleen, acute pancreatitis, and even rectorrhage are reported complications [9,10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Shock Wave Lithotripsy, and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Lower Pole Renal Calculi 10-20 mm

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the results of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for 1- to 2-cm lower pole kidney stones. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study was based on data collected from the files of patients between January 2007 and May 2012. The files of 383 patients (221 SWL, 144 PCNL, 38 RIRS) were evaluated. The groups were compared for stone size, success rate, and complication rate using the modified Clavien grading system. Results: The stone burdens of the groups were similar (p = 0.36). The success rates were 76, 94, and 73%, respectively, in SWL, PCNL, and RIRS. The highest stone-free rate was in the PNL group (p < 0.05). When the complication rates were evaluated using the Clavien grading system, they were determined to be 13% in PCNL, 3% in SWL, and 5% in RIRS. Especially GII and GIII complications were more common in the PCNL group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: PCNL seems to be the most successful but most invasive method. However, with relatively low complication rates, SWL and RIRS are other techniques to keep in mind. To determine the first-line treatment, prospective randomized studies with larger series are needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Shock Wave Lithotripsy, and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Lower Pole Renal Calculi 10-20 mm

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8 There are also more serious complications, such as subcapsular hematoma. 9 Moreover, ruptured spleen, acute pancreatitis, and even rectorrhage are other reported complications. 10,11 Another recent study has mentioned renal scarring by comparing the scintigraphic outcomes of patients who had undergone either percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) or SWL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stones

Öztürk

Şener

Göktuğ

et al. 2013

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: In this study we compare the success rates and complication rates of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), laparoscopic, and ureteroscopic approaches for large (between 1 and 2 cm) proximal ureteral stones. Methods: In total, 151 patients with ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm in diameter were randomized into 3 groups (52 SWL, 51 laparoscopy and 48 retrograde intrarenal surgery [RIRS]). The groups were compared for stone size, success rates, and complication rates using the modified Clavien grading system. Results: Stone burden of the groups were similar (p = 0.36). The success rates were 96%, 81% and 79%, respectively in the laparoscopy, SWL, and ureteroscopy groups. The success rate in laparoscopy group was significantly higher (p < 0.05). When these groups were compared for complication rates, RIRS seemed to be the group with the lowest complication rates (4.11%) (p < 0.05). SWL and laparoscopy seem to have similar rates of complication (7.06% and 7.86%, respectively, p = 0.12). Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the results of laparoscopy, SWL and RIRS in ureteral stones. Our results showed that in management of patients with upper ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm, laparoscopy is the most successful method based on its stone-free rates and acceptable complication rates. However, the limitations of our study are lack of hospital stay and cost-effectiveness data. Also, studies conducted on larger populations should support our findings. When a less invasive method is the only choice, SWL and flexible ureterorenoscopy methods have similar success rates. RIRS, however, has a lower complication rate than the other approaches. IntroductionUpper ureteral stones, which are hard to treat, are frequently encountered in daily practice. For treatment, the most effective and the safest approach should be chosen. Upper ureteral stones can be managed by various approaches. There is no gold standard treatment for stones between 1 and 2 cm. Even though some researchers recommend extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) as first-line treatment, 1 it has a 40% success rate in larger proximal ureteral calculi.2 With the common use of flexible devices in urology, ureteroscopy has gained popularity in the treatment of upper ureteral stones. For stones larger than 1 cm and fully obstructing the passage in the ureter, open or laparoscopic surgery may be an option with success rates up to 100%.1 In recent years, some authors have published their data on the laparoscopic approach and have recommended its use for its high success and low complication rates. 3This study compares the success and complication rates of SWL and laparoscopic and ureteroscopic approaches for proximal ureteral calculi between 1 and 2 cm. MethodsAfter Institutional Review Board approval, we enrolled 150 patients who had ureteral stones between 1 and 2 cm in the study; they were randomized into 3 groups by an online randomization program (52 for SWL, 51 for laparoscopy, and 48 for retrograde intrarenal surge...

show abstract

“…Rijetka, ali ozbiljna komplikacija je ruptura bubrega koja zahtijeva operacijsko zbrinjavanje i ponekada nefrektomiju 17 . Pojava perinefritičnog ili subkapsularnog hematoma udružena je s jakim lumbalnim bolom, ileusom, te mogućim šokom i hipotonijom 18 . Ova komplikacija je rijetka i obično prolazi uz konzervativnu terapiju.…”

Section: Komplikacijeunclassified

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sažetak. Izvantjelesno mrvljenje kamenaca (ESWL) je novija terapijska metoda u liječenju urolitijaze. Temelji se na uporabi šok-valova koji se stvaraju u generatoru, fokusiraju i usmjeruju na kamenac u tijelu pacijenta. Razbijanje kamenca je posljedica nekoliko različitih efekata tih valova na sam konkrement. Razbijanjem nastaju manji fragmenti koji se moraju izmokriti. ESWL se koristi u liječenju bubrežnih kao i kamenaca u mokraćovodu. Metoda je izbora za liječenje bubrežnih kamenaca manjih od 2 cm te onih u proksimalnom dijelu mokraćovoda veličine do 1 cm. Komplikacije su rijetke i najčešće klinički beznačajne. Efikasnost ove metode ovisi o veličini kamenca, njegovom sastavu, kanalnom sustavu bubrega te o iskustvu i vještini urologa. Velika prednost ove metode je da nije potrebna anestezija, za razliku od drugih minimalno invazivnih metoda. Tretman ESWL-a može se ponavljati više puta. Do sada nije dokazan štetan učinak na bubrežnu funkciju, a može se koristiti i u dječjoj populaciji.Ključne riječi: izvantjelesno mrvljenje kamenaca; nefrolitijaza; ureterolitijaza Abstract. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a novel method for the treatment of urolithiasis. It is based on the use of shock waves that are generated in the generator, focused and directed to the stone in the body of the patient. Cracking of the stone is the result of several different effects of these waves. It results with stone fragmentation and spontaneous elimination of fragments. ESWL is used in the treatment of kidney stones and stones in the ureter. These method is the method of choice for treating kidney stones smaller than 2 cm, and those in the proximal part of the ureter up to 1 cm. Complications are rare and usually clinically insignificant. The effectiveness of this method depends on the stone size, its composition, the renal system morphology and the experience and skill of the urologist. The great advantage of this method is that anesthesia is not needed, unlike other minimally-invasive treatements. Also, the ESWL treatment can be repeated several times. There is no proven damaging effect on the renal function and can be used for treatment of stones in the children.

show abstract

Treatment of subcapsular haematoma, a complication of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), by percutaneous drainage

Cited by 19 publications

References 3 publications

Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Shock Wave Lithotripsy, and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Lower Pole Renal Calculi 10-20 mm

Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Shock Wave Lithotripsy, and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Lower Pole Renal Calculi 10-20 mm

The comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stones

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About