Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Matched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Purpose
To compare stone clearance and complications between a ‘wide’ (9 × 50 mm) and ‘narrow’ shockwave focus (6 × 28 mm) when undertaking shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with renal or ureteric stones.
Methods
Data from patients undergoing SWL using the dual focus Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter at a single centre were prospectively collected between February 2018 and September 2020. Patients were matched by stone size, location, and number of treatments. Stone clearance, re-presentation within 31 days, symptoms, complications, and need for post SWL-interventions were compared using McNemar’s test.
Results
Patients receiving wide focus SWL (WF-SWL,
n
= 152) were matched with patients receiving narrow focus SWL (NF-SWL,
n
= 152). Median stone size was 6 mm; energy delivered to WF-SWL and NF-SWL groups was comparable. Complete stone clearance was achieved in 55% of WF-SWL patients (
n
= 84) and 41% (
n
= 63) of NF-SWL patients (
p
= 0.04). Treatment was considered successful in 74% (
n
= 113) of WF-SWL cases and 66% (
n
= 100) of NF-SWL (
p
= 0.20). No difference in rates of readmission, post-procedural pain, haematuria, urinary tract infections, analgesia or antibiotic requirements were identified.
Conclusion
This service evaluation demonstrates no differences in rates of overall treatment success nor complications on comparing WF-SWL and NF-SWL.
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Title: Matched pair analysis of wide versus narrow focus during shockwave lithotripsy for urolithiasis
Description:
Abstract
Purpose
To compare stone clearance and complications between a ‘wide’ (9 × 50 mm) and ‘narrow’ shockwave focus (6 × 28 mm) when undertaking shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with renal or ureteric stones.
Methods
Data from patients undergoing SWL using the dual focus Storz Modulith SLX-F2 lithotripter at a single centre were prospectively collected between February 2018 and September 2020.
Patients were matched by stone size, location, and number of treatments.
Stone clearance, re-presentation within 31 days, symptoms, complications, and need for post SWL-interventions were compared using McNemar’s test.
Results
Patients receiving wide focus SWL (WF-SWL,
n
= 152) were matched with patients receiving narrow focus SWL (NF-SWL,
n
= 152).
Median stone size was 6 mm; energy delivered to WF-SWL and NF-SWL groups was comparable.
Complete stone clearance was achieved in 55% of WF-SWL patients (
n
= 84) and 41% (
n
= 63) of NF-SWL patients (
p
= 0.
04).
Treatment was considered successful in 74% (
n
= 113) of WF-SWL cases and 66% (
n
= 100) of NF-SWL (
p
= 0.
20).
No difference in rates of readmission, post-procedural pain, haematuria, urinary tract infections, analgesia or antibiotic requirements were identified.
Conclusion
This service evaluation demonstrates no differences in rates of overall treatment success nor complications on comparing WF-SWL and NF-SWL.
Related Results
Management of urolithiasis associated with tuberous sclerosis complex
Management of urolithiasis associated with tuberous sclerosis complex
Abstract
The most common renal symptoms of tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) are angiomyolipomas (AMLs) and renal cysts; however, some patients with TSC also develop urolith...
LASER LITHOTRIPSY VS PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPSY IN URETERIC STONE REMOVAL: A CONTROLLED TRIAL
LASER LITHOTRIPSY VS PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPSY IN URETERIC STONE REMOVAL: A CONTROLLED TRIAL
Ureteric stones represent a significant proportion of urolithiasis cases and are a common cause of emergency department visits worldwide. Minimally invasive endourological techniqu...
Single Centre Experience of Slow Versus Fast Rate ESWL in Urolithiasis
Single Centre Experience of Slow Versus Fast Rate ESWL in Urolithiasis
Aim: To compare the success of slow rate with fast rate extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of urolithiasis. Study design: Randomized controlled trial Place &...
Shockwave Lithoplasty versus 355-nm Laser for Vessel Preparation in Calcified Femoropopliteal Arterial Disease: A Single-Center Comparative Study
Shockwave Lithoplasty versus 355-nm Laser for Vessel Preparation in Calcified Femoropopliteal Arterial Disease: A Single-Center Comparative Study
Abstract
Comparative data on vessel preparation using intravascular Shockwave lithotripsy (Johnson and Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ) or the 355-nm Auryon laser (Ang...
Stone-free Rate of Ultrasound-assisted and Fluoroscopy-guided Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Radiopaque Renal Stones
Stone-free Rate of Ultrasound-assisted and Fluoroscopy-guided Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Radiopaque Renal Stones
Background: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been a widely accepted method for treating urinary stones since the early 1980s. ESWL is the preferred non-invasive tre...
Outcome Of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (Eswl) Of Lower Ureteric Stones
Outcome Of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (Eswl) Of Lower Ureteric Stones
Urolithiasis is a prevailing urological condition, with ureteric stones affecting around 22% of cases, mostly causing severe pain and other complications. Surveillance, medical the...
Reporting gaps in shockwave-assisted orthodontic tooth movement and tooth mobility studies
Reporting gaps in shockwave-assisted orthodontic tooth movement and tooth mobility studies
Abstract
Introduction:
To date, studies exploring shockwave-assisted orthodontic tooth movement and tooth mobility have produce...
Shockwave Intravascular Lithotripsy Use in the Femoro-Popliteal Segment: Considerations From an Expert Pan-European Panel Regarding Best-Care Practice
Shockwave Intravascular Lithotripsy Use in the Femoro-Popliteal Segment: Considerations From an Expert Pan-European Panel Regarding Best-Care Practice
Purpose:
Produce expert recommendations regarding the optimal use of Shockwave intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) when treating femoro-popliteal steno-occlusive pe...

