MP38-14 IMPACT OF COLIC PAIN AS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR FOR PREDICTING THE STONE FREE RATE OF ONE-SESSION SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY FOR TREATING URETER STONES: A BAYESIAN LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL ANALYSIS

2015 ◽  
Vol 193 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hae Do Jung ◽  
Doo Yong Chung ◽  
Kang Su Cho ◽  
Dae Hun Lee ◽  
Ki Soo Lee ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Omar Rusydi ◽  
Djoko Rahardjo

Objective: To evaluate the management of ureterolithiasis using Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) EDAP Sonolith Technomed compared to ureteroscopy (URS) with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy. Material & Method: Research was conducted at Central Pertamina Hospital Jakarta by comparative analysis. The data was taken from patients’ medical records diagnosed with ureterolithiasis who had been treated from January to Desember 2009.Results: Central Hospital Pertamina Jakarta had treated 127 patients with urolithiasis from January to December 2009. Most frequent therapeutic modality was URS, which was followed by ESWL.Double J stents were used in 19,8% of the treatmentin combination with URS, more common than ESWL. Stone free rate in urolithiasis was not significantly different between treatment with URS and ESWL, although stone free rate of URS was higher than ESWL.Use of DJ stent didn’t affect stone free rate of urolithiasis from two of these modalities.Conclusion: Stone free rate of these modalities was below of stone free rate at literatures published, because evaluation from stone free rate of this research was taken after the treatment or 1-2 days after the treatment with imaging of KUB and USG.Keywords: Urolithiasis, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureteroscopic,DJ stent, stone free rate.


QJM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A S Hegazy ◽  
M I Ahmed ◽  
A F M Abdelgawad

Abstract Background Urinary stone disease or nephrolithiasis, the third most common disease of the urinary tract is a major health problem due to its high prevalence, incidence and recurrence. The lifetime incidence of kidney stones for men and women is approximately 13% and 7% respectively. Although stones may be asymptomatic, potential consequences include abdominal and flank pain, nausea and vomiting, urinary tract obstruction, infection, and procedure-related morbidity. Ureteral stones frequently cause renal colic and if left untreated can cause obstructive uropathy. Objectives A prospective randomized study to compare between extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and rigid ureteroscopy in mid-ureteric stone treatment regarding efficacy, stone-free rate, retreatment rates, associated complications (intra-operative and post-operative), operative duration, hospital stay. Patients and Methods This study was performed at Ain Shams University (Urology department) and El Doaah hospital (Urology department), From August 2016 to August 2017, a total of 50 patients having solitary radiopaque middle ureteral stone ranges between 0.5 – 1.5 in size were divided into two groups 25 patients each enrolled in our prospective study. Results In this study the overall stone free rate was considered after two sessions of ESWL (in case of ESWL group) or one trial of ureteroscopy (in case of URS group). ESWL group: 14 cases became stone free after the first session, while the remaining 11 out of 25 patients needed second session, 6 cases became stone free after the second session. ESWL failure occurred in 5 cases and they were successfully managed by ureteroscopy. URS group: 23 cases became stone free after first ureteroscopy, while the remaining 2 patients needed second ureteroscopy due to proximal migration of the stone. In ESWL group, patients were already at outpatient clinic so there were no admission or hospital stay, all cases done without anesthesia, just analgesic ± sedation. While in URS group patients admitted and the hospital stay varies from one day to seven days according to the condition of the case, all URS cases had Spinal anesthesia. ESWL was shown to be less time consuming than URS with a mean operative time of 46.84±3.61 minutes versus 56.20±7.11 minutes respectively. In URS group there were 22 patients had ureteric catheter inserted for 24 to 72 hours postoperatively and 3 patients had double (J) stent inserted for 4 weeks postoperatively, while all the patients who underwent ESWL, no auxiliary procedure done as this procedure is completely non-invasive. Among ESWL cases, No case had an intra-operative complication, while URS group had 3 cases of intra-operative complication. There were 4 cases who had post-operative complications among ESWL group, while there were 5 cases who had post-operative complications among URS group. Conclusion In treatment of mid-ureteral stones range 0.5-1.5 in size, both URS and ESWL modalities are comparable but URS is recommended as a first option as it is more effective than ESWL regarding stone free rate and it provides immediate stone clearance with lower re-treatment rates and higher patient satisfaction, but URS requires anesthesia, longer hospitalization, and associated with a higher incidence of complications.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathew D Sorensen ◽  
Michael R Bailey

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy all have an important role in the management of patients with kidney and ureteral stones. SWL remains popular with providers and is preferred by many patients. This review describes the pros and cons of these procedures, the appropriate conditions for SWL, indicators for successful outcomes for SWL, effective SWL technique, and adverse effects. Also reported are the imaging and therapeutic research to improve SWL effectiveness. This may expand the use of SWL by addressing some of SWL’s current limitations and lead to improved patient outcomes. This review contains 5 highly rendered figures, 3 tables, and 85 references Key words: burst wave lithotripsy, cavitation, comminution, coupling, endourology, kidney injury, kidney stones, minimally invasive, nephrolithiasis, shock wave lithotripsy, stone-free rate, ultrasonic propulsion, urolithiasis


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document