ObjectiveTo determine the utility of the urinary stone-attenuation value (SAV, in Hounsfield units, HU) from non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) for predicting the success of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL).Patients and methodsThe study included 305 patients with renal calculi of ⩽30 mm and upper ureteric calculi of ⩽20 mm. The SAV was measured using NCCT. Numerical variables were compared using a one-way analysis of variance with posthoc multiple two-group comparisons. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis models were used to test the preferential effect of the independent variable(s) on the success of ESWL.ResultsPatients were grouped according to the SAV as group 1 (⩽500 HU, 81 patients), group 2 (501–1000 HU, 141 patients) and group 3 (>1000 HU, 83 patients). ESWL was successful in 253 patients (83%). The rate of stone clearance was 100% in group 1, 95.7% (135/141) in group 2 and 44.6% (37/83) in group 3 (P = 0.001).ConclusionsThe SAV value is an independent predictor of the success of ESWL and a useful tool for planning stone treatment. Patients with a SAV ⩾956 HU are not ideal candidates for ESWL. The inclusion criteria for ESWL of stones with a SAV <500 HU can be expanded with regard to stone size, site, age, renal function and coagulation profile. In patients with a SAV of 500–1000 HU, factors like a body mass index of >30 kg/m2 and a lower calyceal location make them less ideal for ESWL.

PCNL in both positions was equally successful with no significant differences in complications. PCNL in the oblique supine lithotomy position was superior to PCNL in the prone position regarding operative time, hospital stay, and effects on respiratory and cardiovascular status, making it more comfortable for patients and anesthesiologists. Morbidly obese patients, patients with cardiologic disorders, and patients with pulmonary obstructive airway disease need further studies to show if they would benefit from these differences. Additionally, it is more comfortable for the surgeon with little challenges added in the initial puncture.

Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full‐power versus slow rate, power‐ramping shock wave lithotripsy in the management of stones with a high attenuation value. Methods This was a randomized comparative study enrolling patients with single high attenuation value (≥1000 Hounsfield unit) stones (≤3 cm) between September 2015 and May 2018. Patients with skin‐to‐stone distance >11 cm or body mass index >30 kg/m2 were excluded. Electrohydraulic shock wave lithotripsy was carried out at rate of 30 shock waves/min for group A versus 60 shock waves/min for group B. In group A, power ramping was from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18–22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. This full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. In group B, power ramping was carried out with an increase of 4 kV each 500 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1000–1500 shock waves. Follow up was carried out up to 3 months after the last session. Perioperative data were compared, including the stone free rate (as a primary outcome) and complications (secondary outcome). Predicting factors for success were analyzed using logistic regression. Results A total of 100 patients in group A and 96 patients in group B were included. The stone‐free rate was significantly higher in group A (76% vs 38.5%; P < 0.001). Both groups were comparable in complication rates (20% vs 19.8%; P = 0.971). The stone‐free rate remained significantly higher in group A in logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 24.011, 95% confidence interval 8.29–69.54; P < 0.001). Conclusions Ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value stones is associated with an improved stone‐free rate without affecting safety. Further validation studies are required using other shock wave lithotripsy machines.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy protocol in the management of high attenuation value upper ureteric stones compared with slow‐rate, power‐ramping shock wave lithotripsy.MethodsThis was a randomized trial enrolling patients with a single high attenuation value (≥1000 HU) upper ureteric stones between January 2019 and July 2019. Ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy (54 patients) was applied at a rate of 30 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18–22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. Then, full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. Slow‐rate, power‐ramping shock wave lithotripsy (47 patients) was applied at a rate of 60 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 10 kV during the first 500 shock waves, then from 11 to 22 kV during the next 1000 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1500 shock waves. Up to three sessions were carried out with a follow up 3 months after the last session. The primary outcome was the stone‐free rate. Perioperative data of the two protocols were compared.ResultsThere was no significant difference in preoperative data. The stone‐free rate was significantly higher in ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy after single (92.6% vs 23.4%) and multiple (96.3% vs 63.8%) sessions. Most complications were mild, with no significant difference between both groups (9.3% vs 12.8%; P = 0.573). Logistic regression analysis identified ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy protocol as the only significant independent factor for the stone‐free rate (odds ratio 12.589, P = 0.025).ConclusionUltraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value upper ureteric stones is associated with a significantly higher stone‐free rate, and with mild complications that are comparable to those of standard shock wave lithotripsy.

No abstract

Background To evaluate and compare the recurrence rate of overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms after solifenacin treatment in patients who stop the drug suddenly versus those who gradually wean the drug after improvement of their condition. Methods Our study included 60 patients with idiopathic OAB and treated with solifenacin 5 mg twice daily for one month. After improvement of their condition, we divided the responders into two groups, group I stopped the drug suddenly, while group II underwent gradual weaning of the drug. Results The recurrence rate of symptoms of OAB was 33.3% and 60% after 1 and 3 months in patients who stopped the solifenacin suddenly after improvement of their symptoms, while it was 6.7% and 23.3% after 1 and 3 months in patients who gradually weaned solifenacin. Conclusion After the improvement of OAB symptoms, gradual weaning of solifenacin can help in decreasing the recurrence rate of symptoms.

No abstract

No abstract