Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Increasing the Energy Dose Applied Per Session by Increasing the Number of Shock Waves in Extracorporeal Lithotripsy: A Prospective and Comparative Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of increasing the energy dose in treating urinary lithiasis with extracorporeal lithotripsy through an expanded number of Shock Waves Per Session (SWPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: a randomized, prospective, and comparative study was performed with patients with renal or ureteral lithiasis from 2011 to 2014. Two groups were studied: Group A (n = 136), treated with 3500 SWPS, and Group B (n = 171), subjected to an expanded treatment with 7000 SWPS. Patients were considered stone free when there was no lithiasis or it were less or equal to 4 mm after treatment. Variables related to the patient, stones, treatment, and complications were collected. RESULTS: The global SFR was 75.0% and 87.7% in Groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.004). In renal location, the SFR was higher in Group B (74.1% vs 90.7%, p = 0.003) regardless of the size. In the ureteral location, there were differences in the pelvic only (73.7% vs 95.2%). There were no differences in either the complication rate (27.2% vs 25.7%, p = 0.77), or the severity between the two groups. The variable "number of SWPS" was seen to be an independent predictor of the resolution of lithiasis, having the probability of resolving lithiasis 2.62 (CI 95% = 1.40-4.89) times greater when applying 7000 SWPS. CONCLUSION: In our study, increasing the energy dose applied through an expanded number of SWPS has been shown to be more effective than standard regimens with a similar safety profile. However, more clinical studies on different types of lithotripters are required to confirm these results.

[New strategies and protocols in SWL.] / Nuevas estrategias y protocolos en LEOC.

OBJECTIVE: An update of the new treatment strategies in extracorporeal lithotripsy as a valid therapeutic alternative in the management of urinary calculi. METHODS: We performed a search and review of the most recent literature which responded to the terms "best practices", "update", "optimization", "practice pattern" in lithotripsy. Only articles written in English or Spanish were selected. RESULTS: The use of a stepwise voltage ramping during extracorporeal lithotripsy with or without pause before the first rise of energy, a decreased delivery rates and the use of a higher number of shock waves per session are shown as alternatives to improve the effectiveness with optimum safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal lithotripsy is still an effective and minimally invasive treatment, and it has an important role in the treatment of urolithiasis. New treatment strategies are being developed to increase the effectiveness with a similar safety profile.

[Comparative study between analgesic efficacy and safety of meperidine compared with lidocaine periprostatic infiltration in transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy]. / Estudio comparativo entre la eficacia analgésica y seguridad de la meperidina intravenosa frente a la infiltración periprostática con lidocaína en biopsias transrectales de próstata.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of intravenous analgesia with meperidine compared to periprostatic plexus infiltration with lidocaine, and safety of periprostatic local anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized study with 100 patients undergoing first or second prostate biopsy. We distribute patients in two groups, group A (50 patients) which was administered 50 mg of intravenous meperidine and group B (50 patients) receiving 5 mL of lidocaine 2% in the angle between prostate and seminal vesicles. Pain was assessed by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and a questionnaire about the emotional impact. Procedure safety was obtained by telephone questionnaire about prostate biopsy complications. The statistical analysis used was chi square test, Student's t test and Kruskal-Wallis no parametric test. RESULTS: Median age was 66 years (47-80) and both groups were homogeneous with regard to: PSA, prostate volume, core's number and educational level without significant differences. 74 patients (74%) had their first biopsy and 26 (26%) had their second one. The average number of core biopsy was 10,9 +/- 2, and VAS mean score for group A was 3,6 +/- 1,8 versus 3,2 +/- 2 Group B without significant differences (p>0,05). We found significant differences (p<0,05) between transducer introduction (3,9 +/- 1,9 group A/B group 4,3 +/- 2,2) and core biopsy (3,6 +/- 1,8 group A/B group 3,2 +/- 2,2). There were no differences between the data obtained with emotional impact test, age and educational level comparing to pain caused by prostate biopsy. Regard to the number of cores obtained there were no differences (p>0,05). Complications appeared in 12 patients (12%), 5 in the group of meperidine compared with 7 in the lidocaine without differences between them. CONCLUSION: Periprostatic plexus blocked with lidocaine does not offer advantages respect to meperidine, despite the fact that this is a safe method that does not increase the number of complications. Placing transrectal transducer causes more pain than biopsy cores.