A Clinical Nomogram to Predict the Successful Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Renal and Ureteral Calculi

Wiesenthal, Joshua D.; Ghiculete, Daniela; Ray, A. Andrew; Honey, R. John D'a.; Pace, Kenneth T.

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.109

Cited by 85 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A large retrospective Canadian series, including renal and ureteral stones, demonstrated on multivariate analysis that a SSD of greater than 11 cm (OR 0.49, CI 0.31-0.78) and density greater than 900 HU (OR 0.49, CI 0.32-0.75) were significant predictors of SWL failure. 20 A second large retrospective review of 1282 SWL treatments also demonstrated on multivariate analysis that SSD greater than 10 cm was associated with lower stone-free rates.…”

Section: Skin-to-stone Distance (Ssd)mentioning

confidence: 97%

CUA Guideline: Management of ureteral calculi

Ordon

Andonian²,

Blew³

et al. 2015

CUAJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The focus of this guideline is the management of ureteral stones. Specifically, the topics covered include: conservative management, medical expulsive therapy, active intervention with either shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or ureteroscopy (URS), factors affecting SWL treatment success, optimizing success, and special considerations (e.g., pregnancy, urinary diversion). By performing extensive literature reviews for each topic evaluated, we have generated an evidence-based consensus on the management of ureteral stones. The objective of this guideline is to help standardize the treatment of ureteral stones to optimize treatment outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Skin-to-stone Distance (Ssd)mentioning

confidence: 97%

CUA Guideline: Management of ureteral calculi

Ordon

Andonian²,

Blew³

et al. 2015

CUAJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several scoring systems have been developed for predicting the SFS after shock-wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and PCNL [11,12].The Guy"s stone score (GSS) includes stone number, location, presence of staghorn stones and abnormal anatomy to determine differentgrades, and it was reported that the SFS declinedwith increasing grades of complexity [13]. [2,[14][15][16][17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome of PCNL- Success &Complications

Sharma¹,

Lavania²,

Khetarpal³

et al. 2016

IOSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Vakalopoulos [36] developed a mathematical model to predict ESWL outcomes where predictive equations can be generated for diferent lithotripters. Wiesenthal et al [37] developed a remarkable nomogram to predict the outcomes of renal and ureteral stone SWL treatment dependent on patient and stone factors. The risk of SWL failure is signiicantly related to increase radio density both in vivo and in vitro; cysteine, calcium oxalate, monohydrate and brushite stones are less liable to be treated by SWL [38,39].…”

Section: Recent Trends In Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (Eswl)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy: Non‐Urological Indications and Recent Trends

Maraie¹,

Osman²,

Salem³

2017

Updates and Advances in Nephrolithiasis - Pathophysiology, Genetics, and Treatment Modalities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) was introduced in 1980 as the preferred tool by the urologist for the treatment of renal stones and or upper ureteral stones. ESWL is minimally invasive procedures, exposes patients to fewer anesthesias, and has equivalent stone-free rates comparable to open surgery and endourology interventions for the treatment of renal stones. Urolithiasis is not the only application for extracorporeal shock waves but there are also other applications for it. Extracorporeal shock wave is used for the treatment of gall bladder stones, common bile duct stone clearance, pancreatic calculi, salivary stones, erectile dysfunction, and refractory angina pectoris chronic wound healing. This chapter gives full review about ESWL as minimally invasive procedures in the following items: (i) ESWL l in treatment of gall stones; (ii) ESWL for common bile duct (CBD) stones; (iii) ESWL for pancreatic stones associated with pancreatic pseudo cysts and chronic pancreatitis; (iv) ESWL in the treatment of salivary stones; (v) ESWL in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED); (vi) Cardiac shock wave therapy (ESWL) in treatment of refractory angina (RA); (vii) ESWL and chronic wound healing; (viii) Recent trends in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL); (ix) Post ESWL complementary therapy; and (x) The future of ESWL in the year 2038.

show abstract

A Clinical Nomogram to Predict the Successful Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Renal and Ureteral Calculi

Cited by 85 publications

References 29 publications

CUA Guideline: Management of ureteral calculi

CUA Guideline: Management of ureteral calculi

Outcome of PCNL- Success &Complications

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy: Non‐Urological Indications and Recent Trends

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About