Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Lithotripter outcomes in a community practice setting: comparison of an electromagnetic and an electrohydraulic lithotripter.
Bhojani, Naeem; Mandeville, Jessica A; Hameed, Tariq A; Soergel, Trevor M; McAteer, James A; Williams, James C; Krambeck, Amy E; Lingeman, James E.
Afiliación
  • Bhojani N; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Mandeville JA; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Hameed TA; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Soergel TM; First Urology, Jeffersonville, Indiana.
  • McAteer JA; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Williams JC; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Krambeck AE; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
  • Lingeman JE; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. Electronic address: jlingeman@iuhealth.org.
J Urol ; 193(3): 875-9, 2015 Mar.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25305356
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

We assessed patient outcomes using 2 widely different contemporary lithotripters. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

We performed a consecutive case series study of 355 patients in a large private practice group using a Modulith® SLX electromagnetic lithotripter in 200 patients and a LithoGold LG-380 electrohydraulic lithotripter (TRT, Woodstock, Georgia) in 155. Patients were followed at approximately 2 weeks. All preoperative and postoperative films were reviewed blindly by a dedicated genitourinary radiologist. The stone-free rate was defined as no residual fragments remaining after a single session of shock wave lithotripsy without an ancillary procedure.

RESULTS:

Patients with multiple stones were excluded from analysis, leaving 76 and 142 treated with electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripsy, respectively. The stone-free rate was similar for the electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripters (29 of 76 patients or 38.2% and 69 of 142 or 48.6%, p = 0.15) with no difference in the stone-free outcome for renal stones (20 of 45 or 44.4% and 33 of 66 or 50%, p = 0.70) or ureteral stones (9 of 31 or 29% and 36 of 76 or 47.4%, respectively, p = 0.08). The percent of stones that did not break was similar for the electrohydraulic and electromagnetic devices (10 of 76 patients or 13.2% and 23 of 142 or 16.2%) and ureteroscopy was the most common ancillary procedure (18 of 22 or 81.8% and 30 of 40 or 75%, respectively). The overall mean number of procedures performed in patients in the 2 groups was similar (1.7 and 1.5, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS:

We present lithotripsy outcomes in the setting of a suburban urology practice. Stone-free rates were modest using shock wave lithotripsy alone but access to ureteroscopy provided satisfactory outcomes overall. Although the acoustic characteristics of the electrohydraulic and electromagnetic lithotripters differ substantially, outcomes with these 2 machines were similar.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Litotricia / Cálculos Renales / Cálculos Ureterales Tipo de estudio: Evaluation_studies / Observational_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2015 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Litotricia / Cálculos Renales / Cálculos Ureterales Tipo de estudio: Evaluation_studies / Observational_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2015 Tipo del documento: Article