scholarly journals Prognostic implications of double J ureteral stenting in patients with renal stones undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. 3831
Author(s):  
Rahul Jain ◽  
Karthikeyan Raju ◽  
Rajandeep Singh Bali ◽  
Jagdish Chander ◽  
Sushanto Neogi
Keyword(s):  
Urinary Tract ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Renal Calculus ◽  
Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy ◽  
P Value ◽  
Shockwave Lithotripsy ◽  
Stone Clearance ◽  
Extracorporeal Shockwave ◽  
Double J Stent ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Most patients with uncomplicated kidney stones can be successfully treated with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). Double-J ureteral stent is used to facilitate stone clearance, however double-J ureteral stents themselves may cause complications. Study conducted the study to know the exact role of double J stent in ESWL.Methods: 80 patients undergoing ESWL were divided into two groups, group A (n=40) double J stenting and group B (n=40) without double J stenting. Both groups were compared for stone fragmentation, stone clearance, number of shockwaves required for fragmentation, time required for passing through ureter, steinstrasse, Urinary Tract Infection.Results: Both the groups were comparable for age, sex, stone size and stone location distribution. There was no significant difference in clearance of stone and no. of shockwaves received for clearance in both the groups. The overall incidence of steinstrasse between the two groups was insignificant with a p value of 0.644. The incidence of UTI was significantly higher in stented group (p value 0.032).Conclusions: Study recommend ESWL without double J stent in patients having solitary renal calculus of size < 2 cm. Double J stent predisposes the patient to multiple complications including urinary tract infection which increases the morbidity of the patient. Based on our study we conclude that double J stenting in patients of renal calculus of size < 2cm, prior to ESWL is not beneficial.

scholarly journals TO COMPARE THE EFFICACY OF URETEROSCOPIC LITHOTRIPSY VERSUS EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPSY IN THE TREATMENT OF PROXIMAL URETERIC STONES OF SIZE BETWEEN 10MM TO 15MM.

1969 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 658-662
Author(s):  
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD IRSHAD KHALIL ◽  
IAZ AHMAD KHAN ◽  
SIDDIQUE ADNAN
Keyword(s):  
Urinary Tract ◽  
Kidney Diseases ◽  
Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Shockwave Lithotripsy ◽  
Stone Size ◽  
Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy ◽  
Stone Clearance ◽  
Extracorporeal Shockwave ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave

BACKGROUND: The overall probability that an individual will form stones varies in different regionsof the world. The risk of having urinary tract stones in the developed country populations is between 10-15%. The prevalence of urinary tract stone disease is 13% for adult males and 7% among the females.Most of the patients with ureteric stones present with colicky pain, however some may be asymptomaticand are identified on routine assessment. Large stones typically require active treatment. Stones that donot pass can be removed by different treatment modalities such as Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy(ESWL), Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and open or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of Ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shockwavelithotripsy in the treatment of proximal ureteric stones of size between 10mm to 15mm.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized control trial of 138 human subjects,conducted at Department of Urology, Institute of Kidney Diseases, Hayatabad Medical Complex,Peshawar. Total sample size was based on the previously reported stone clearance rates for proximalureteric stones (88% URSL12 and 67.5% for ESWL11), 95% confidence interval and power of 90%.RESULTS: In this study mean age was 47.36 years SD +15.4. Fifty nine percent patients were male and41% patients were female. Eighteen percent patients had stone size 10mm, 19.6% patients had stone size11mm, 19.6% patients had stone size 12mm, 16.7% patients had stone size 13mm, 13.6 patients hadstone size 14mm, 11.6% patients had stone size 15mm. ESWL was effective in 65.2% and was notsuccessful in 34.8%, while in the URSL group 84.1% were treated successfully and in 15.9% patientswith proximal ureteric stones the stone clearance efficacy was not effective.CONCLUSION: Both URSL & ESWL are well accepted minimally invasive modalities of treatmentfor proximal ureteric stones. We conclude that URSL has yielded superior results as compared to theESWL group in treatment of patients with proximal ureteric stones of size 1-1.5cm.KEY WORDS: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, proximal ureteric stones.

scholarly journals A novel triple oral regime provides effective analgesia during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arpan Choudhary ◽  
Supriya Basu ◽  
Rakesh Sharma ◽  
Rupesh Gupta ◽  
RanjitKumar Das ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Stones ◽  
Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy ◽  
Shockwave Lithotripsy ◽  
Extracorporeal Shockwave ◽  
Effective Analgesia

scholarly journals Predictive factors of successful extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) for renal stones: evidence of retrospective study

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-64
Author(s):  
Shukur Mahmood Yaseen ◽  
Saad Ahmed Ali Jadoo ◽  
Ayad Aziz Abdullah ◽  
Anmar Shukur Mahmood ◽  
Wassan Nasrat Abd Al-wahaab
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Linear Regression ◽  
Multiple Linear Regression ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Predictive Factor ◽  
Renal Stone ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy ◽  
Shockwave Lithotripsy ◽  
Extracorporeal Shockwave

Background: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) has proved to be effective in treating ureterolithiasis. This study aimed to investigate the predictive factors related to success ESWL among patient presented with renal stone. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted among 40 patients who underwent ESWL at the urology department, Baquba Teaching Hospital, Diyala University, Iraq. Data was collected between1st October 2018 and 31st January 2019 for renal stones diagnosed by non-enhanced spiral computed tomography (NCCT). The success rate defined as no stone or the remnant stones < 4 mm. We analyzed predictive factors by using multiple linear regression. Results: The success rates ranged from 50-90%. In the univariate analysis, body mass index (BMI), skin-to-stone distance (SSD)and the renal stone-attenuation value (in Hounsfield units, HU) were found to be significantly correlated with the outcome of ESWL (p<0.05). However, in the multiple linear regression, only the HU (B = -0.619, P < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.03 to 0.07) was theindependent predictive factor. Conclusion: Hounsfield Unit is an independent predictive factor influencing the success of ESWL for treating renal stones.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document