Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole Caliceal Calculi 1 cm or Less

Pearle, Margaret S.; Lingeman, James E.; Leveillee, Raymond J.; Kuo, Ramsay L.; Preminger, Glenn M.; Nadler, Robert B.; Macaluso, Joseph N.; Monga, Manoj; Kumar, Udaya; Dushinski, John; Albala, David; Wolf, J. Stuart; Assimos, Dean G.; Fabrizio, Michael D.; Munch, Larry C.; Nakada, Stephen Y.; Auge, Brian K.; Honey, John; Ogan, Kenneth; Pattaras, John; McDougall, Elspeth M.; Averch, Timothy D.; Türk, Thomas; Pietrow, Paul K.; Watkins, Stephanie L.

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.140

Cited by 127 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For stones that are 1 cm or less in diameter, the reported stone-free rates after SWL range from 63% to 76%. [11] The success rates decrease to 43% for stones 11 to 15 mm in diameter and 30% for 16 to 20 mm in diameter. [12] The reported stone-free rate of SWL for lower pole calculi is 25-85%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Previous shock-wave lithotripsy treatment does not impact the outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy

Yürük¹,

Binbay²,

Akman³

et al. 2014

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first-line treatment for the active removal of small and medium-sized kidney stones. Flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) is recommended after failed SWL treatment. The aim of this retrospective analysis is to evaluate whether prior unsuccessful SWL treatments affect the outcomes of fURS. Material and methods:Data from 206 patients who underwent fURS for the treatment of renal stones between September 2009 and January 2011 were collected, and the patients were divided into two groups according to their previous SWL treatment. The patient demographics, stone characteristics, operation and fluoroscopy times, stone-free rates and complications were compared.Results: Of the patients, 114 (55.3%) did not undergo SWL prior to fURS (Group 1), whereas 92 (44.6%) completed a minimum of 3 sessions of SWL and waited at least 2 weeks before the fURS operation (Group 2). Although the mean stone number was higher in Group 2, this difference was not significant (p= 0.06). The mean operation (p= 0.12) and fluoroscopy times (p= 0.69) were similar between the groups. The mean operation time per mm 2 stone and fluoroscopy time per mm2 stone were not significantly different (p= 0.64 and p= 0.76, respectively). The length of the hospitalization and the overall complication rates were similar. After the third postoperative month, the stone-free rates were not different between the groups (82.5% and 86.9%, respectively, p=0.38). Conclusion:The stone-free and complication rates of fURS were not affected by previous SWL therapy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Previous shock-wave lithotripsy treatment does not impact the outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy

Yürük¹,

Binbay²,

Akman³

et al. 2014

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yine 10 mm'den büyük distal üreter taşların-da ise başarı oranı ÜRS için %93 (%91-%95), ESWL ESWL sonrası parçalara ayrılan taşların neden olduğu taş yolu, bu kırıntıların yeniden büyümesi, renal kolik ile birlikte daha az sıklıkla bakteriüri, sepsis ve hematom gibi komplikasyonlar görülebilir [19][20][21] . ESWL grubunda sekiz (%7,1) hastada ateş ve beş (%4,4) hastada İYE gelişmiş ve bunlar uygun kültür antibiyogram sonucuna göre tedavi edilmişti.…”

Section: Tartıșmaunclassified

Comparison of ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of distal ureteral stones

Çeçen¹,

Coguplugil²,

Demir³

et al. 2015

Kafkas J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Taş lokalizasyonu, boyutu, sayısı ve dansitesi, taş-cilt mesafesi, renal anatomi özellikle SWL için; taş boyutu, sayısı ve lokalizasyonu da URS için başarıyı etkileyen esas faktörler olarak sayılabilir (16)(17)(18)(19). PNL ile SWL ve fleksibl URS'yi karşılaştıran prospektif randomize çalışmalarda PNL yüksek morbidite oranına rağmen SWL ve URS'den daha başarılı tedavi yöntemi olarak ön plana çık-maktadır (20,21). Henüz çok yeni bir yöntem olan mikroperk ile diğer tedavileri karşılaştıran çalışmalar malesef sınırlı sayıdadır.…”

Section: Mikroperk'in Gelişim Süreci Ve İlgili Klinik çAlışmaların Sounclassified

Mikroperk

Armağan¹

2015

Endouroloji

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole Caliceal Calculi 1 cm or Less

Abstract: This study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in stone-free rates between SWL and URS for the treatment of small lower pole renal calculi. However, SWL was associated with greater patient acceptance and shorter convalescence.

Cited by 127 publications

References 19 publications

Previous shock-wave lithotripsy treatment does not impact the outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy

Previous shock-wave lithotripsy treatment does not impact the outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy

Comparison of ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of distal ureteral stones

Mikroperk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About