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.

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

OBJETIVO: Actualizar las nuevas estrategias de tratamiento con litotricia extracorpórea (LEOC) como una alternativa terapéutica vigente en el manejo de la litiasis urinaria.MÉTODOS: Se ha realizado una revisión de la literatura más reciente cuya búsqueda respondía a los términos 'mejores prácticas', 'update', 'optimization', 'practicepattern' en litotricia. Sólo fueron seleccionadas aquellas escritas en lengua inglesa o española. RESULTADOS: La disminución de la frecuencia de liberación de las ondas de choque, la aplicación de un escalonamiento progresivo en la dosis aplicada con o sin pausa previo al primer ascenso de la energía, y la utilización de un mayor número de ondas de choque por sesión se muestran como alternativas que mejoran la efectividad con un perfil de seguridad óptimo para el paciente. CONCLUSIONES: La LEOC es un tratamiento efectivo y mínimamente invasivo, que mediante la aplicación de una técnica adecuada todavía tiene un papel relevante en el tratamiento de la litiasis urinaria. Nuevas estrategias de tratamiento en LEOC están siendo desarrolladas para aumentar la efectividad, sin incrementar los riesgos para el paciente

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

Impacto en la calidad de una vida de los pacientes con catéter doble J / Impact in the quality of life of the patients with double J catheter

OBJETIVO: Los catéteres doble J se usan frecuentemente para permitir la diuresis entre riñón y vejiga, pero su presencia tiene un importante impacto en la calidad de vida (CdV) de los pacientes. Nuestro objetivo en este trabajo es describir dicho impacto y recoger aquellas medidas que pueden paliar los síntomas relacionados con su uso. MÉTODOS: Se ha realizado una búsqueda de artículos en las fuentes bibliográficas Cochrane library, Uptodate, Pubmed, Tripdatabase, seleccionando publicaciones entre 2000-2015 y las guías europeas EAU 2016. Se seleccionaron aquellos estudios que evaluaron la calidad de vida con catéteres doble J y las posibles soluciones. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 6 estudios cualitativos sobre calidad de vida, 6 ensayos clínicos sobre nuevos diseños en catéteres doble J, y 3 revisiones sistemáticas. La mayoría de los estudios utilizaron el cuestionario USSQ de calidad de vida. Se describen los principales problemas, siendo los mas frecuentes e importantes los síntomas de llenado y dolor. Entre las posibles soluciones se encuentran modificaciones en diseño y composición del catéter y sobre todo el uso de alfa-bloqueantes y anticolinérgicos para mejorar la CdV. CONCLUSIÓN: Los catéteres doble J presentan una importante repercusión sintomática y deterioro en la CdV lo cual hace necesario una indicación adecuada, limitar su duración y utilizar todas aquellas medidas tecnológicas y farmacológicas para paliar sus efectos

OBJECTIVE: Double J ureteral stents are frequently used to allow free diuresis from the kidney to the bladder, but their presence has a major impact on patient`s quality of life (QoL). Our aim is to describe such impact, and to describe possible solutions that can alleviate the symptoms associated with their use. METHODS: Systematic search in bibliographic sources including Cochrane library, UpToDate, Pubmed, Tripdatabase, selecting publications between 2000-2015, and also the EAU European guidelines (2016). Studies that assessed QoL with double J stents and possible solutions were selected. RESULTS: We included 6 qualitative studies on QoL, 6 clinical trials of double J catheters new designs, and 3 systematic reviews. Most studies used the USSQ (QoL) questionnaire and main problems are described, being storage symptoms and pain the most frequent and important. Possible solutions include modifications in design and composition of the catheter and specially, the use of alpha-blockers and anticholinergics to improve QoL. CONCLUSION: Double J stents have an important symptomatic impact that impairs QoL. They should be used under appropriate indication; their duration should be limited and we must employ all the technological and pharmacological approaches to mitigate their effects

[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.

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

Objetivo: Evaluar la eficacia de la analgesia intravenosa con meperidina frente a la infiltración del plexo periprostático con lidocaína, y seguridad de la anestesia local periprostática. Material y métodos: Estudio prospectivo aleatorizado con 100 pacientes sometidos a primera o segunda biopsia de próstata. Distribuimos a los pacientes en dos grupos; grupo A (50 pacientes) al que se le administra 50 mg de meperidina intravenosa y grupo B (50 pacientes) que reciben 5 mL de lidocaína al 2% en el ángulo prostatoseminal. El dolor fue evaluado mediante la Escala Analógico Visual (VAS) y un cuestionario a cerca del impacto emocional de la prueba. La seguridad del procedimiento se obtuvo mediante cuestionario telefónico sobre las complicaciones aparecidas tras la biopsia. Para el análisis estadístico se uso el test de chi cuadrado, la t de Student y test no paramétrico de Kruskal-Wallis. Resultados: La mediana de edad fue 66 años (47-80) siendo ambos grupos homogéneos respecto a: PSA, volumen prostático, número de cilindros y nivel de estudios, sin diferencias significativas. Se trató de una primera biopsia en 74 pacientes (74%) y 26 (26%) de una segunda. El número medio de cilindros fue de 10,9±2. La puntuación media del VAS para el grupo A fue 3,6±1,8 frente a 3,2±2 del grupo B sin diferencias significativas (p>0,05). Si comparamos el dolor con la introducción del transductor (grupo A 3,9±1,9 / grupo B 4,3±2,2) frente a la toma de cilindro (grupo A 3,6±1,8/grupo B 3,2±22) sí encontramos diferencias significativas (p<0,05). No se observan diferencias ente los datos obtenidos con el test de impacto emocional, la edad y el nivel de estudios frente al dolor producido por la prueba. Respecto al número de cilindros obtenidos tampoco existen diferencias (p>0,05). Aparecieron complicaciones en 12 pacientes (12%); 5 en el grupo de meperidina frente a 7 en el de lidocaína sin observar diferencias entre ambos. Conclusión: El bloqueo del plexo periprostático con lidocaína no ofrece ventajas analgésicas respecto a la meperidina, a pesar de que se trata de un método seguro que no aumenta el número de complicaciones. El paso del transductor transrrectal produce más dolor que la propia toma de los cilindros (AU)

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 (AU)