Predicting effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy by stone attenuation value - PubMed (original) (raw)
. 2010 Jul;24(7):1169-73.
doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0124.
Affiliations
- PMID: 20575686
- DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0124
Predicting effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy by stone attenuation value
Kartik Shah et al. J Endourol. 2010 Jul.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of stone attenuation value on the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for upper urinary tract stones.
Methods: In this prospective study, 99 patients underwent SWL for solitary renal and upper ureteral stones from January 2007 to March 2009. All patients underwent CT scan before SWL. The mean attenuation value of stones in our study was 1213.3 +/- 314.5 Hounsfield units (HU). Group A consisted of 42 patients with stones of attenuation value <1200 HU and group B had 57 patients with stones of attenuation value >1200 HU. Stone size, location, requirement of number of shockwaves, shock intensities (power), retreatment rate, complication rate, auxiliary procedure rate, and effectiveness quotient (EQ) ratio were studied.
Results: The mean total number of shocks required to fragment the stones in groups A and B were 1317.1 +/- 345.3 and 1646.5 +/- 610.8, respectively (p = 0.001), with a mean shock intensity of 12.2 +/- 0.7 and 12.4 +/- 0.5 kV, respectively (p = 0.03). Retreatment was not required in patients of group A, but 14.03% patients in group B required retreatment (p < 0.0001). Clearance rate in group A was 88.1%, whereas in group B it was 82.5% (p = 0.35). Auxiliary procedure rates were 9.5% and 10.5% in groups A and B (p = 0.22), respectively. EQ was 80.4% and 66.2% in groups A and B (p = 0.03), respectively. Complication rates were similar with 2.4% and 3.5% in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.37). Significant correlation was recorded for total number and intensity of shocks with stone attenuation value.
Conclusions: The EQ of SWL for upper urinary tract stones was significantly better for stones with lower attenuation value. The number and intensity of shocks required to fragment these stones with lower attenuation value were also significantly lower.
Similar articles
- A Prospective Evaluation of High-Resolution CT Parameters in Predicting Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Success for Upper Urinary Tract Calculi.
Abdelhamid M, Mosharafa AA, Ibrahim H, Selim HM, Hamed M, Elghoneimy MN, Salem HK, Abdelazim MS, Badawy H. Abdelhamid M, et al. J Endourol. 2016 Nov;30(11):1227-1232. doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0364. Epub 2016 Oct 3. J Endourol. 2016. PMID: 27597174 - Can we predict the ancillary treatments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal and upper ureteral stones?
Ibrahim A, Elatreisy A, Khogeer A, Ahmadi A, Mishra S, Faisal M, Sabnis R, Aube-Peterkin M, Carrier S, Ganpule A, Desai M. Ibrahim A, et al. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022 Dec 27;94(4):439-442. doi: 10.4081/aiua.2022.4.439. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022. PMID: 36576455 - Treatment for extended-mid and distal ureteral stones: SWL or ureteroscopy? Results of a multicenter study.
Hendrikx AJ, Strijbos WE, de Knijff DW, Kums JJ, Doesburg WH, Lemmens WA. Hendrikx AJ, et al. J Endourol. 1999 Dec;13(10):727-33. doi: 10.1089/end.1999.13.727. J Endourol. 1999. PMID: 10646679 Clinical Trial. - The Efficacy of Medical Expulsive Therapy (MET) in Improving Stone-free Rate and Stone Expulsion Time, After Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) for Upper Urinary Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Skolarikos A, Grivas N, Kallidonis P, Mourmouris P, Rountos T, Fiamegos A, Stavrou S, Venetis C; Members of RISTA Study Group. Skolarikos A, et al. Urology. 2015 Dec;86(6):1057-64. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.09.004. Epub 2015 Sep 14. Urology. 2015. PMID: 26383613 Review. - Treatment of urinary tract stones.
Wickham JE. Wickham JE. BMJ. 1993 Nov 27;307(6916):1414-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6916.1414. BMJ. 1993. PMID: 8274898 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
- Are Hounsfield densities of ureteral stones a predictive factor for effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy?
Cakiroglu B, Eyyupoglu SE, Tas T, Balci MC, Hazar I, Aksoy SH, Sinanoglu O. Cakiroglu B, et al. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014 May 15;7(5):1276-83. eCollection 2014. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014. PMID: 24995083 Free PMC article. - Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones.
Tiselius HG, Chaussy CG. Tiselius HG, et al. Urolithiasis. 2015 Oct;43(5):387-96. doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0818-9. Epub 2015 Aug 28. Urolithiasis. 2015. PMID: 26315364 Review. - Can stone density on plain radiography predict the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones?
Lim KH, Jung JH, Kwon JH, Lee YS, Bae J, Cho MC, Lee KS, Lee HW. Lim KH, et al. Korean J Urol. 2015 Jan;56(1):56-62. doi: 10.4111/kju.2015.56.1.56. Epub 2015 Jan 6. Korean J Urol. 2015. PMID: 25598937 Free PMC article. - Role of Hounsfield Unit in Predicting Outcomes of Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi: Outcomes of a Systematic Review.
Garg M, Johnson H, Lee SM, Rai BP, Somani B, Philip J. Garg M, et al. Curr Urol Rep. 2023 Apr;24(4):173-185. doi: 10.1007/s11934-023-01145-w. Epub 2023 Feb 21. Curr Urol Rep. 2023. PMID: 36802317 Free PMC article. - Computed tomography window affects kidney stones measurements.
Danilovic A, Rocha BA, Marchini GS, Traxer O, Batagello C, Vicentini FC, Torricelli FCM, Srougi M, Nahas WC, Mazzucchi E. Danilovic A, et al. Int Braz J Urol. 2019 Sep-Oct;45(5):948-955. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0819. Int Braz J Urol. 2019. PMID: 31268643 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources