Comparison between two shock wave regimens using frequencies of 60 and 90 impulses per minute for urinary stones
- PMID: 21120294
- PMCID: PMC2972613
- DOI: 10.1590/s1807-59322010001000006
Comparison between two shock wave regimens using frequencies of 60 and 90 impulses per minute for urinary stones
Abstract
Purpose: Two different regimens of SWL delivery for treating urinary stones were compared.
Methods: Patients with urinary stones were randomly divided into two groups, one of which received 3000 shocks at a rate of 60 impulses per minute and the other of which received 4000 shocks at 90 impulses per minute. Success was defined as stone-free status or the detection of residual fragments of less than or equal to 3 mm three months after treatment. Partial fragmentation was considered to have occurred if a significant reduction in the stone burden was observed but residual fragments of 3mm or greater remained.
Results: A total of 143 procedures were performed with 3000 impulses at a rate of 60 impulses per minute, and 156 procedures were performed with 4000 impulses at 90 impulses per minute. The stone-free rate was 53.1% for patients treated with the first regimen and 54.8% for those treated with the second one (p = 0.603). The stone-free rate for stones smaller than 10 mm was 60% for patients treated with 60 impulses per minute and 58.6% for those treated with 90 impulses per minute. For stones bigger than 10 mm, stone-free rates were 34.2% and 45.7%, respectively (p = 0.483). Complications occurred in 2.3% of patients treated with 60 impulses per minute and 3.3% of patients treated with 90 impulses per minute.
Conclusion: No significant differences in the stone-free and complication rates were observed by reducing the total number of impulses from 4000 to 3000 and the frequency from 90 to 60 impulses per minute.
Comment in
-
Re: comparison between two shock wave regimens using frequencies of 60 and 90 impulses per minute for urinary stones.Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66(1):181. doi: 10.1590/s1807-59322011000100033. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011. PMID: 21437459 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- Chaussy C, Schuller J, Schmiedt E, Brandl H, Jocham D, Liedl B. Extracorporeal shock‐wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of urolithiasis. Urology. 1984;23:59–66. 10.1016/0090‐4295(84)90243‐7 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Skolarikos A, Alivizatos G, de la Rosette J. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy 25 years later: complication and prevention. Eur Urol. 2006;50:981–90. 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.01.045 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez‐Aceves J, et al. Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis‐initial results. J Urol. 2001;166:2072–80. 10.1016/S0022‐5347(05)65508‐5 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Renner C, Rassweiler J. Treatment of renal stones by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Nephron. 1999;81(Suppl 1):71–81. 10.1159/000046302 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar M, Tuglu E, Mert C, Basar H. Optimal frequency in Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective randomized study. Urology. 2005;66:1160–4. 10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.111 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources