Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1991 Dec;37(12):1633-7.

[Evaluation of the results of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for solitary upper urinary tract stone]

[Article in Japanese]
Affiliations
  • PMID: 1785386

[Evaluation of the results of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for solitary upper urinary tract stone]

[Article in Japanese]
S Wada et al. Hinyokika Kiyo. 1991 Dec.

Abstract

We performed extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) on 1,701 patients in a total of 2,438 sessions using the Dornier kidney lithotriptor Model HM III from July 1985 to the end of June 1990. Among the patients with a solitary stone, 1,200 cases were available for the follow-up study in which the results of ESWL were analyzed according to the location and size of the stone. ESWL performed against stones at pelvis and calyces gave the best results. The results obtained on stones less than 20 mm in diameter were especially favorable with a success rate of 84%. ESWL performed against ureter stones showed poor results with a success rate of 62% for the stones smaller than 20 mm in diameter. We further studied the results of ESWL performed against ureter stones by dividing the patients into three groups: the patients treated in situ, the patients with ureteral stents and the patients with D-J stents. The results for stones larger than 10 mm in diameter were significantly better in the patients with D-J stents than in the patients treated in situ or the patients with ureteral stents. Among the patients treated in situ, the results were significantly worse for impacted stones than for non-impacted stones when the stone size was 10-20 mm in diameter.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types