Do patients expect too much from extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy?

BACKGROUND: The era of patient-focused care has brought a new dimension to medical treatment. Now, as well as looking for therapies that work effectively, they must also be acceptable to patients. Previous studies in this department have shown that stone clearance rates with lithotripsy compare favourably with national standards, but very little work has been done regarding patient's own perception of the experience. METHODS: A postal survey was conducted of all patients attending the lithotripsy unit over a period of 1 year, questioning their opinion of all aspects of the treatment. The results were analysed by conversion to a numerical score. RESULTS: On the whole, patients expressed satisfaction, but they were more dissatisfied with the stone clearance than any other aspect of their treatment. In the light of a previous study, it was felt that the patients' expectations were unrealistic. As a result, we changed our practice such that patients attending the unit have a better idea of the likelihood of success. CONCLUSIONS: This was a simple and cost-effective exercise, that has generated some valuable data which can be used to improve the entire patient experience.

Sticks and stones: use of acupuncture in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is an effective noninvasive, outpatient method of stone clearance. In our unit, it is performed using a combination of oral analgesia and intravenous sedation, which allows us to treat to therapeutic levels in the vast majority of our patients. However, we have encountered patients who do not tolerate various elements of the analgesia protocol and thus cannot be treated to full effect. The options for these people are currently limited to either SWL under formal sedation or epidural or general anesthetic or the use of another technique of stone clearance, such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy, which may not be as appropriate, and again necessitates an anesthetic, an inpatient stay, or both. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We describe three patients who had previously failed SWL who received acupuncture in place of standard analgesia prior to the next treatment. RESULTS: All three patients were able to tolerate the procedure better and were treated at a higher level with more shocks than in the previous session. No side effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that acupuncture may be considered in patients unable to take standard sedoanalgesia. It is a cost-effective, safe method of inducing sedation with analgesia and had no demonstrable side effects in our series. It provides an attractive alternative to the use of general or regional anesthetics in these patients.