![](/scidirimg/clear.gif)
![How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window) How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)](/scidirimg/icon_doi.gif)
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Endourology/MIS
Impact of Stone Location on Success Rates of Endoscopic Lithotripsy for Nephrolithiasis
A total of 67 patients randomized to SWL (32) or URS (35) completed treatment. The 2 groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, side treated and stone surface area. Operative time was significantly shorter for SWL than URS (66 vs 90 minutes). At 3 months of followup 26 and 32 patients who underwent SWL and URS had radiographic followup that demonstrated a stone-free rate of 35%and 50%, respectively (p not significant). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1 SWL case (unable to target stone) and in 7 URS cases (failed access in 5 and perforation in 2), while postoperative complications occurred in 7 SWL and 7 URS cases. Patient derived quality of life measures favored SWL.
This study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in stone-free rates between SWL and URS for the treatment of small lower pole renal calculi. However, SWL was associated with greater patient acceptance and shorter convalescence.
![]() | Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Shock Wave Litho... The Journal of Urology |
![]() The Journal of Urology, Volume 179, Issue 5, Supplement 1, May 2008, Pages S69-S73 Margaret S. Pearle, James E. Lingeman, Raymond Leveillee, Ramsay Kuo, Glenn M. Preminger, Robert B. Nadler, Joseph Macaluso, Manoj Monga, Udaya Kumar, John Dushinski, David M. Albala, J. Stuart Wolf Jr., Dean Assimos, Michael Fabrizio, Larry C. Munch, Stephen Y. Nakada, Brian Auge, John Honey, Kenneth Ogan, John Pattaras, et al. Abstract PurposeThe optimal management of lower pole renal calculi is controversial. We compared shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of patients with small lower pole stones in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial.Materials and MethodsA total of 78 patients with 1 cm or less isolated lower pole stones were randomized to SWL or URS. The primary outcome measure was stone-free rate on noncontrast computerized tomography at 3 months. Secondary outcome parameters were length of stay, complication rates, need for secondary procedures and patient derived quality of life measures. ResultsA total of 67 patients randomized to SWL (32) or URS (35) completed treatment. The 2 groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, body mass index, side treated and stone surface area. Operative time was significantly shorter for SWL than URS (66 vs 90 minutes). At 3 months of followup 26 and 32 patients who underwent SWL and URS had radiographic followup that demonstrated a stone-free rate of 35%and 50%, respectively (p not significant). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1 SWL case (unable to target stone) and in 7 URS cases (failed access in 5 and perforation in 2), while postoperative complications occurred in 7 SWL and 7 URS cases. Patient derived quality of life measures favored SWL. ConclusionsThis study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in stone-free rates between SWL and URS for the treatment of small lower pole renal calculi. However, SWL was associated with greater patient acceptance and shorter convalescence. ![]() |
![]() | Stone Disease European Urology Supplements |
![]() European Urology Supplements, Volume 6, Issue 12, July 2007, Pages 717-722 Thomas Knoll Abstract ObjectivesThe purpose of this review is to discuss the major findings presented at the “New Horizons in Urology” closed expert meeting, held October 2006 in Marbella, Spain, on improving the management of stone disease (renal and ureteral stones), and to summarise the consequences of these findings on improving current practice in managing stone disease.MethodsApproximately 135 European urologists attended the meeting. Data and papers discussed in recent congress meetings in 2006 were considered. Experts in the field of stone disease selected and discussed the most relevant new findings. Furthermore, the delegate's opinion on representative clinical case studies was assessed by interactive voting. An expert panel commented on voting results. ResultsAt the meeting, it was highlighted that stones that fail to pass spontaneously in a reasonable time can be treated by minimally invasive surgical procedures including extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). The choice of treatment largely depends on the size and location of stones. However, treatment with URS is more frequently used for managing stone disease, and the number of SWL therapies is decreasing. Furthermore, the use of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists as medical expulsive therapy has been shown to increase the expulsion rate and decrease the time until the stone is passed. ConclusionsMinimally invasive surgical procedures such as SWL, URS, and PNL have been widely adopted for stone removal, with each approach having its own advantages and disadvantages. ![]() |
![]() | View More Related Articles |
View Record in Scopus |
Impact of Stone Location on Success Rates of Endoscopic Lithotripsy for Nephrolithiasis