Journals / Haydarpaşa Numune Medical Journal / 2022 / Cilt: 62 - Sayı: 1

Factors That Affecting Success and Re-admission in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones with Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Pages
42–47
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Factors affecting ESWL success include male gender, stone size, stone volume, and stone density; stone-skin distance and degree of renal ectasia were found to affect final success (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the methods applied in urinary system stone disease.
📊
Key Findings & Data:ESWL has a very high success rate, and there are many factors that affect its success.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Factors affecting ESWL success include male gender, stone size, stone volume, and stone density; stone-skin distance and degree of renal ectasia were found to affect final success (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Introduction: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the methods applied in urinary system stone disease. ESWL has a very high success rate, and there are many factors that affect its success. In our study, we aimed to present our shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) results in proximal ureter stones, the reasons for re-admission to the hospital after SWL, and the final success achieved after additional interventions. Methods: Between March 2017 and October 2019, 142 patients aged 18 years and over who underwent SWL for proximal ureteral stones were retrospectively evaluated. Age, sex, body mass index, stone laterality, stone size and volume (π×1/ 6×length×width×height), stone-skin distance, stone density, hydronephrosis degrees, number of SWL sessions, reasons for re-admission, and final success results were evaluated. The stone size determined on CT0.05). Factors affecting ESWL success include male gender, stone size, stone volume, and stone density; stone-skin distance and degree of renal ectasia were found to affect final success (p

🔖

Cite This Article

TOPAKTAŞ, R., TOPRAK, T., DANACIOĞLU, Y. O., ARIKAN, Y., KUTLUHAN, M. A., ARSLAN, U. (2022). Factors That Affecting Success and Re-admission in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones with Shock Wave Lithotripsy. Haydarpaşa Numune Medical Journal, Cilt: 62 - Sayı: 1, 42–47. https://ajindex.com/articles/535862

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Turk C, A. Skolarikos, A. Neisius, A. Petrik, C. Seitz, K. Thomas, et al. EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Assoc Urol 2019;69:11– 6
  2. Liong ML, Clayman RV, Gittes RF, Lingeman JE, Huffman JL, Lyon ES. Treatment options for proximal ureteral urolithiasis: Review and recommendations. J Urol 1989;141:504–9
  3. Turk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016;69:475–82
  4. Rassweiler JJ, Tailly GG, Chaussy C. Progress in lithotriptor technology. EAU Update Series 2005;3:17–36
  5. Rasool M, Tabassum SA, Sheikh AH, Mumtaz F. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: Initial experience at Bahawalpur. Annals 2010;15:21
  6. Scales CD Jr, Saigal CS, Hanley JM, Dick AW, Setodji CM, Litwin MS. The impact of unplanned postprocedure visits in the management of patients with urinary stones. Surgery 2014;155:769–75
  7. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205– 13
  8. Neisius A, Lipkin ME, Rassweiler JJ, Zhong P, Preminger GM, Knoll T. Shock wave lithotripsy: The new phoenix? World J Urol 2015;33:213–21
  9. Robert M, A'Ch S, Lanfrey P, Guiter J, Navratil H. Piezoelectric shockwave lithotripsy of urinary calculi: Comparative study of stone depth in kidney and ureter treatments. J Endourol 1999;13:699–703
  10. Izamin I, Aniza I, Rizal AM, Aljunid SM. Comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for treatment of proximal ureteric calculi: A cost-effectiveness study. Med J Malaysia 2009;64:12–21
  11. Muslumanoglu AY, Binbay M, Yuruk E, Akman T, Tepeler A, Esen T, et al. Updated epidemiologic study of urolithiasis in Turkey. I: Changing characteristics of urolithiasis. Urol Res 2011;39:309–14
  12. Yang TK, Yang HJ, Lee LM, Liao CH. Body mass index and buttock circumference are independent predictors of disintegration failure in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi. J Formos Med Assoc 2013;112:421–5
  13. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Panagopoulos G, Bruno JJ, Fracchia JA. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield units. Urology 2005;65:33–6
  14. El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O, Sheir KZ. A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: The value of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomo