|
KMID : 0358320070480010054
|
|
Korean Journal of Urology
2007 Volume.48 No. 1 p.54 ~ p.60
|
|
|
Comparative Results of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripters with Three Kinds of Shock Wave Generator
|
|
Yu Dong-Wook
Seo Ill-Young
Rim Joung-Sik
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Purpose: To compare the results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters according to three shock wave energy sources; piezoelectric(EDAP LT 01?), electromagnetic(Storz Modulith SLX) and electroconductive(EDAP- TMS Sonolith VISION), for the treatment of urinary stones.
Materials & Methods: Between February 1990 and March 2006, 1,504 patients(1,691 renal units) were treated with LT-01+(group A), 2,265 patients(2,500 renal units) with a Modulith SLX(group B) and 927 patients (946 renal units) with a Sonolith VISION(group C). The success rates, number of sessions and complications were examined. Statistical analyses were also conducted according to the size and location of the stones.
Results: There were no significant differences in the success rates between the three groups(group A, 97.8%; group B, 98.1%; group C, 97.1%). According to the stone size, the success rate for stones more than 1cm2 was lower in group C than in groups A and B. According to the location, group C had a lower success rate than groups A and B for renal stones, while there were no differences between the three groups in the treatment of other stone locations. The number of treatment sessions for group A was greater than those for groups B and C(group A, 3.83; group B, 1.85; group C, 1.93). Many more sessions were required for group A in comparison with groups B and C in case of renal stones, ureteropelvic junction and upper ureteral stones. The number of sessions for group B was the least for lower ureteral stones. Complications, including steinstrasse, fever, perirenal hematoma and hematuria, were detected in groups A, B and group C at 10, 15.3 and 7.1%, respectively.
Conclusion: There were no differences in the success rates between the three extracorporeal shock wave lithotripters using a shock wave generator. The mean number of treatment sessions was most with the piezoelectric type; whereas, complications were most prevalent with the electromagnetic type.(Korean J Urol 2007;48:54-60)
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, Urinary stone
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
  
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
  
|
|