Prediction of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteric stones

Salman, Muwafak; Al‐Ansari, Abdulla; Talib, Raidh A.; El-Malik, E.M.A.; Al-Bozaom, Issam A; Shokeir, Ahmed A.

doi:10.1007/s11255-006-0104-4

Cited by 23 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A logistic regression model was designed by Abdel-Khaleketal et al [14] to predict the probability of SFR after ESWL according to three significant factors, including stone position, transverse diameter of the stone, and the presence of a ureteric stent. Salman et al [25] also reported the same three significant predictors. They found that the SFR was higher for PUS than distal US after ESWL [14,25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Salman et al [25] also reported the same three significant predictors. They found that the SFR was higher for PUS than distal US after ESWL [14,25]. However, the factors affecting the SFR of PUS after ESWL have not yet been defined.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Abdel-khalek et al [14] reported that the transverse stone diameter is a prognostic factor for the US after ESWL. Salman et al [25] also reported that the SFR of patients who had stones with a transverse diameter of <8 mm was 89.9%, compared to 66.7% for those with a transverse diameter of >8 mm. We also had a similar result, with the SFR of patients who had a stone width of <7 mm being 90%, compared to 73% for those with a stone of >7 mm (P = 0.001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…However, the factors affecting the SFR of PUS after ESWL have not yet been defined. Furthermore, ureteric stent insertion is an optional choice during the primary treatment of PUS [14,25]; therefore, it was clearer in the present study to evaluate prognostic factors under natural conditions that might influence the SFR after ESWL because no patients had a ureteric catheter indwelling. Our result was consistent with their finding, that the width of the US was a significant factor, but the threshold was 7 mm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Chronic kidney disease affects the stone‐free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteric stones

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

percutaneous pigtail nephrostomy tube were excluded. We divided patients into groups by chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage according to the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥ 60 and < 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . Stone-free status was defined as no visible stone fragments on a plain abdominal film at 3 months after ESWL. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the possible significant factors that influenced the SFR of PUS after ESWL, and to develop a prediction model. RESULTSThe overall SFR of PUS (276/319 patients) was 86.5%; the SFR was 93% in patients with an eGFR of ≥ 60 and 50% in those with an eGFR of < 60 ( P < 0.001). After univariate and multivariate analysis, the three significant factors affecting SFR were an eGFR of ≥ 60, stone width, and gender, with odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 19.54 (8.25-46.30) ( P < 0.001), 0.67 (0.55-0.82) ( P < 0.001) and 0.16 (0.05-0.50 ( P = 0.002), respectively. A logistic regression model was developed to estimate the probability of SFR after ESWL, the equation being 1/(1 + exp [ − (3.8137 − 0.3967 × (stone width) + 2.9724 × eGFR − 1.8120 × Male)]), where stone width is the observed value (mm), eGFR = 1 for eGFR ≥ 60 and 0 for < 60, and male = 1 for male, 0 for female. CONCLUSIONSGender, eGFR ≥ 60 and a stone width of > 7 mm were significant predictors affecting the SFR after one session of ESWL for PUS. KEYWORDSstone-free rate, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureteric calculi, chronic kidney disease Study Type -Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 OBJECTIVETo investigate the effect of renal function on the stone-free rate (SFR) of proximal ureteric stones (PUS) after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), as urinary obstruction caused by PUS can impair renal function, and elevated serum creatinine levels are associated with decreased ureteric stone passage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Chronic kidney disease affects the stone‐free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteric stones

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several prognostic factors determining the success of ESWL treatment of ureteric stones have been studied. These include the stone site, size, crystal type, degree of obstruction, stone impaction and function of the renal unit 2,3 . Studies of the effect of the presence of a double J stent on the ESWL success rate have given conflicting results.…”

Section: Introduction:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Double J Stent on the Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Ureteral Stones.

VenugopalA¹,

KV²,

VS³

et al. 2018

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To evaluate the effect of double J stent on the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones. Patients and methods: Open labelled prospective audit of patients with solitary ureteric calculi receiving ESWL in a single centre was performed during May 2015 to July 2017.The study group consisted of 176 ureteric stone patients who were treated with ESWL. In 68 cases, treatment was preceded by ureteric stent insertion. Success was defined as complete stone clearance in post procedure X ray KUB imaging after 2 weeks. Demographic data of patients and stone characteristics were correlated with ESWL outcome. Logistic regression analysis was applied to evaluate the hypothesis of an interaction between stone size and the presence of a D J stent. Results: The mean age of patients were 39.68 years (range 21-68), 70.45 % (124 /176) of patients were males. Mean stone size was 13.2 mm. The overall success rate with ESWL is 68.18%. Treatment was more effective for smaller (p = 0.162) and more proximally located stones (p = 0.025). A DJ stent in situ at the time of ESWL reduced the success rate for stones with size more than10 mm (p = 0.032). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that the presence of double J stent reduces the success rate of ESWL treatment when the stone size is more than 10 mm in size.Copy Right, IJAR, 2018,. All rights reserved. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………....Introduction:-Urolithiasis is a major clinical and economic burden for health care systems. It is estimated that up to 13% of men and 7% of women develop urolithiasis in their lifetime 1 . Several prognostic factors determining the success of ESWL treatment of ureteric stones have been studied. These include the stone site, size, crystal type, degree of obstruction, stone impaction and function of the renal unit

show abstract

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Children

Gitlin

Chuan

2014

Urinary Stones

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prediction of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteric stones

Abstract: The site and transverse diameter of the stone and the presence of a ureteral stent are the only significant predictors of success of ESWL therapy for ureteric stones.

Cited by 23 publications

References 12 publications

Chronic kidney disease affects the stone‐free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteric stones

Chronic kidney disease affects the stone‐free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteric stones

The Effect of Double J Stent on the Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Ureteral Stones.

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About