
pmid: 17338608
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.
Treatment Outcome, Ureteral Calculi, Lithotripsy, Humans
Treatment Outcome, Ureteral Calculi, Lithotripsy, Humans
| 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% |
