Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Journal of Endourolo...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Journal of Endourology
Article . 2007 . Peer-reviewed
License: Mary Ann Liebert TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Impact of Shockwave Coupling on Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy

Authors: Derek, Weiland; Courtney, Lee; Roland, Ugarte; Manoj, Monga;

Impact of Shockwave Coupling on Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy

Abstract

To evaluate the impact of a slow gated treatment rate on the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL).From August 1990 to July 2002, 40,462 SWL procedures were performed using the slow frequency electrocardiography (ECG)-gated lithotripter (82.5%) and fast frequency ECG-ungated (17.5%) modes for the Medstone STS lithotripter. Treatment characteristics, including the mode of SWL, location and size of the stone, re-treatment status, auxiliary procedures required, perioperative complications, and treatment outcomes, were recorded. The stone-free rate was reported by the treating physician on the basis of the finding of no residual stone fragments on a plain radiographic image.The treatment rate for the slow mode was a mean of 79.6 shocks/min, while the rate for the fast mode was 120/min. The total procedure time was 47.0 minutes for the slow mode and 40.6 minutes for the fast. The overall stone-free rate was higher for slow (66.9%) than fast (63.6%) procedures (P < 0.001). The stone-free rate for 1- to 10-mm stones was higher for the slow procedures (75.7%) than the fast procedures (70.7%; P < 0.001). Upper-ureteral stones responded better to slow treatment in terms of stone-free rate (79.5% v 72.6%; P < 0.001), re-treatment rate (6.5% v 8.0%, P = 0.05), auxiliary-procedure rate (6.1% v 8.9%; P = 0.01), and efficiency quotient (71 and 62). There was no significant difference in complication rates overall between slow and fast treatment.With a minimal increase in procedure time, greater efficacy can be obtained for the treatment of radiopaque stones with a slower shock-delivery rate. In particular, upper-ureteral calculi and calculi <10 mm benefit from a slower treatment rate.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Treatment Outcome, Ureteral Calculi, Lithotripsy, Humans

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    16
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
16
Average
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!